Absorbed dose in ion beams: comparison of ionisation- and fluence-based measurements
A direct comparison measurement of fluorescent nuclear track detectors (FNTDs) and a thimble ionisation chamber is presented. Irradiations were performed using monoenergetic protons (142.66 MeV, ϕ=3×10(6) cm(-2)) and carbon ions (270.55 MeV u(-1), ϕ=3 × 10(6) cm(-2)). It was found that absorbed dose...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Radiation protection dosimetry 2014-10, Vol.161 (1-4), p.387-392 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 392 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1-4 |
| container_start_page | 387 |
| container_title | Radiation protection dosimetry |
| container_volume | 161 |
| creator | Osinga, Julia-Maria Brons, Stephan Bartz, James A Akselrod, Mark S Jäkel, Oliver Greilich, Steffen |
| description | A direct comparison measurement of fluorescent nuclear track detectors (FNTDs) and a thimble ionisation chamber is presented. Irradiations were performed using monoenergetic protons (142.66 MeV, ϕ=3×10(6) cm(-2)) and carbon ions (270.55 MeV u(-1), ϕ=3 × 10(6) cm(-2)). It was found that absorbed dose to water values as determined by fluence measurements using FNTDs are, in case of protons, in good agreement (2.4 %) with ionisation chamber measurements, if slower protons and Helium secondaries were accounted for by an effective stopping power. For carbon, however, a significant discrepancy of 4.5 % was seen, which could not be explained by fragmentation, uncertainties or experimental design. The results rather suggest a W-value of 32.10 eV ± 2.6 %. Additionally, the abundance of secondary protons expected from Monte-Carlo transport simulation was not observed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1093/rpd/ncu004 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1586101977</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1586101977</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-ebea7ba0f4cc13761b526b5edac32ea512e5c24958de05094d5c809e880794243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK1e_AGSowixs5vdbOKtFL-g4KWew35MIJJk405y8N-b0urphZln3oGHsVsOjxzKbB0Hv-7dBCDP2JJrKdJMQn7OlsClTAspYMGuiL4AhC6VvGQLIWWpleJLtt9YCtGiT3wgTJo-aUKfWDQdPSUudIOJDc2TUB8WDZlxjjQxvU_qdsLeYWoNzecdGpoidtiPdM0uatMS3pxyxT5fnvfbt3T38fq-3exSJwo9pji_0dZALZ3jmc65VSK3Cr1xmUCjuEDlhCxV4REUlNIrV0CJRQG6lEJmK3Z_7B1i-J6QxqpryGHbmh7DRBVXRc6Bl1rP6MMRdTEQRayrITadiT8Vh-pgsZotVkeLM3x36p1sh_4f_dOW_QK_3W6H</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1586101977</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Absorbed dose in ion beams: comparison of ionisation- and fluence-based measurements</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Osinga, Julia-Maria ; Brons, Stephan ; Bartz, James A ; Akselrod, Mark S ; Jäkel, Oliver ; Greilich, Steffen</creator><creatorcontrib>Osinga, Julia-Maria ; Brons, Stephan ; Bartz, James A ; Akselrod, Mark S ; Jäkel, Oliver ; Greilich, Steffen</creatorcontrib><description>A direct comparison measurement of fluorescent nuclear track detectors (FNTDs) and a thimble ionisation chamber is presented. Irradiations were performed using monoenergetic protons (142.66 MeV, ϕ=3×10(6) cm(-2)) and carbon ions (270.55 MeV u(-1), ϕ=3 × 10(6) cm(-2)). It was found that absorbed dose to water values as determined by fluence measurements using FNTDs are, in case of protons, in good agreement (2.4 %) with ionisation chamber measurements, if slower protons and Helium secondaries were accounted for by an effective stopping power. For carbon, however, a significant discrepancy of 4.5 % was seen, which could not be explained by fragmentation, uncertainties or experimental design. The results rather suggest a W-value of 32.10 eV ± 2.6 %. Additionally, the abundance of secondary protons expected from Monte-Carlo transport simulation was not observed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-8420</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1742-3406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncu004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24497551</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Calorimetry ; Carbon - chemistry ; Computer Simulation ; Helium ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Ions ; Microscopy, Confocal - instrumentation ; Microscopy, Confocal - methods ; Models, Statistical ; Monte Carlo Method ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Protons ; Radiometry - instrumentation ; Radiometry - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Software ; Water</subject><ispartof>Radiation protection dosimetry, 2014-10, Vol.161 (1-4), p.387-392</ispartof><rights>The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-ebea7ba0f4cc13761b526b5edac32ea512e5c24958de05094d5c809e880794243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-ebea7ba0f4cc13761b526b5edac32ea512e5c24958de05094d5c809e880794243</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24497551$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Osinga, Julia-Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brons, Stephan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartz, James A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akselrod, Mark S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jäkel, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greilich, Steffen</creatorcontrib><title>Absorbed dose in ion beams: comparison of ionisation- and fluence-based measurements</title><title>Radiation protection dosimetry</title><addtitle>Radiat Prot Dosimetry</addtitle><description>A direct comparison measurement of fluorescent nuclear track detectors (FNTDs) and a thimble ionisation chamber is presented. Irradiations were performed using monoenergetic protons (142.66 MeV, ϕ=3×10(6) cm(-2)) and carbon ions (270.55 MeV u(-1), ϕ=3 × 10(6) cm(-2)). It was found that absorbed dose to water values as determined by fluence measurements using FNTDs are, in case of protons, in good agreement (2.4 %) with ionisation chamber measurements, if slower protons and Helium secondaries were accounted for by an effective stopping power. For carbon, however, a significant discrepancy of 4.5 % was seen, which could not be explained by fragmentation, uncertainties or experimental design. The results rather suggest a W-value of 32.10 eV ± 2.6 %. Additionally, the abundance of secondary protons expected from Monte-Carlo transport simulation was not observed.</description><subject>Calorimetry</subject><subject>Carbon - chemistry</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Helium</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Ions</subject><subject>Microscopy, Confocal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Microscopy, Confocal - methods</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Monte Carlo Method</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Protons</subject><subject>Radiometry - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiometry - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Water</subject><issn>0144-8420</issn><issn>1742-3406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK1e_AGSowixs5vdbOKtFL-g4KWew35MIJJk405y8N-b0urphZln3oGHsVsOjxzKbB0Hv-7dBCDP2JJrKdJMQn7OlsClTAspYMGuiL4AhC6VvGQLIWWpleJLtt9YCtGiT3wgTJo-aUKfWDQdPSUudIOJDc2TUB8WDZlxjjQxvU_qdsLeYWoNzecdGpoidtiPdM0uatMS3pxyxT5fnvfbt3T38fq-3exSJwo9pji_0dZALZ3jmc65VSK3Cr1xmUCjuEDlhCxV4REUlNIrV0CJRQG6lEJmK3Z_7B1i-J6QxqpryGHbmh7DRBVXRc6Bl1rP6MMRdTEQRayrITadiT8Vh-pgsZotVkeLM3x36p1sh_4f_dOW_QK_3W6H</recordid><startdate>201410</startdate><enddate>201410</enddate><creator>Osinga, Julia-Maria</creator><creator>Brons, Stephan</creator><creator>Bartz, James A</creator><creator>Akselrod, Mark S</creator><creator>Jäkel, Oliver</creator><creator>Greilich, Steffen</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201410</creationdate><title>Absorbed dose in ion beams: comparison of ionisation- and fluence-based measurements</title><author>Osinga, Julia-Maria ; Brons, Stephan ; Bartz, James A ; Akselrod, Mark S ; Jäkel, Oliver ; Greilich, Steffen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-ebea7ba0f4cc13761b526b5edac32ea512e5c24958de05094d5c809e880794243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Calorimetry</topic><topic>Carbon - chemistry</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Helium</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Ions</topic><topic>Microscopy, Confocal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Microscopy, Confocal - methods</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Monte Carlo Method</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Protons</topic><topic>Radiometry - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiometry - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Water</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Osinga, Julia-Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brons, Stephan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartz, James A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akselrod, Mark S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jäkel, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greilich, Steffen</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiation protection dosimetry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Osinga, Julia-Maria</au><au>Brons, Stephan</au><au>Bartz, James A</au><au>Akselrod, Mark S</au><au>Jäkel, Oliver</au><au>Greilich, Steffen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Absorbed dose in ion beams: comparison of ionisation- and fluence-based measurements</atitle><jtitle>Radiation protection dosimetry</jtitle><addtitle>Radiat Prot Dosimetry</addtitle><date>2014-10</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>161</volume><issue>1-4</issue><spage>387</spage><epage>392</epage><pages>387-392</pages><issn>0144-8420</issn><eissn>1742-3406</eissn><abstract>A direct comparison measurement of fluorescent nuclear track detectors (FNTDs) and a thimble ionisation chamber is presented. Irradiations were performed using monoenergetic protons (142.66 MeV, ϕ=3×10(6) cm(-2)) and carbon ions (270.55 MeV u(-1), ϕ=3 × 10(6) cm(-2)). It was found that absorbed dose to water values as determined by fluence measurements using FNTDs are, in case of protons, in good agreement (2.4 %) with ionisation chamber measurements, if slower protons and Helium secondaries were accounted for by an effective stopping power. For carbon, however, a significant discrepancy of 4.5 % was seen, which could not be explained by fragmentation, uncertainties or experimental design. The results rather suggest a W-value of 32.10 eV ± 2.6 %. Additionally, the abundance of secondary protons expected from Monte-Carlo transport simulation was not observed.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>24497551</pmid><doi>10.1093/rpd/ncu004</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0144-8420 |
| ispartof | Radiation protection dosimetry, 2014-10, Vol.161 (1-4), p.387-392 |
| issn | 0144-8420 1742-3406 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1586101977 |
| source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Calorimetry Carbon - chemistry Computer Simulation Helium Image Processing, Computer-Assisted Ions Microscopy, Confocal - instrumentation Microscopy, Confocal - methods Models, Statistical Monte Carlo Method Phantoms, Imaging Protons Radiometry - instrumentation Radiometry - methods Reproducibility of Results Software Water |
| title | Absorbed dose in ion beams: comparison of ionisation- and fluence-based measurements |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T22%3A35%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Absorbed%20dose%20in%20ion%20beams:%20comparison%20of%20ionisation-%20and%20fluence-based%20measurements&rft.jtitle=Radiation%20protection%20dosimetry&rft.au=Osinga,%20Julia-Maria&rft.date=2014-10&rft.volume=161&rft.issue=1-4&rft.spage=387&rft.epage=392&rft.pages=387-392&rft.issn=0144-8420&rft.eissn=1742-3406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/rpd/ncu004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1586101977%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1586101977&rft_id=info:pmid/24497551&rfr_iscdi=true |