Comparison of two kinds of calibration methods for the activity of radioactive sources(PDF)
《中国医学物理学杂志》[ISSN:1005-202X/CN:44-1351/R]
- Issue:
- 2020年第10期
- Page:
- 1213-1217
- Research Field:
- 医学放射物理
- Publishing date:
Info
- Title:
- Comparison of two kinds of calibration methods for the activity of radioactive sources
- Author(s):
- YANG Feng1; LIU Mingzhe2; WANG Xianliang1; QI Guohai1; KANG Shengwei1; TANG Ting1; FENG Xi1; LIU Min1; LI Jie1
- 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China 2. College of Nuclear Technology and Automation Engineering, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
- Keywords:
- Keywords: afterloading well-type chamber radioactive source activity calibration Ir-192 dose calculation
- PACS:
- R312；R144.1
- DOI:
- DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2020.10.001
- Abstract:
- Abstract: Objective To study the differences between two kinds of calibration methods for the activity of radioactive sources, and discuss their applicabilities in clinical practice. Methods Four MicroSelectron Ir-192 sources were measured using two different calibration methods. In the first method, the electric charge at the most sensitive position of the well-type ionization chamber was measured at the setting (300 V bias) provided by the industry standard?f hygiene (WS262-2017), and the activity of radioactive sources was measured using the formula provided by WS262-2017. In the second method, the electric charge at the most sensitive position of the well-type ionization chamber was measured at 400 V bias which was the setting provided by the manufacturer of the well-type ionization chamber, and the activity of radioactive sources was measured using the formula provided by the manufacturer. The deviation between the measured results and the theoretically calculated values was compared. Results According to the methods separately provided by WS262-2017 and the manufacturer, the activity of radioactive sources was AW and AP, respectively. The minimum deviation between AW and AP was 0.64%, and the maximum deviation was -3.03%. The minimum and maximum deviations between AW and the theoretically calculated result AT was -0.21% and 2.60%, respectively and the minimum and maximum deviations between AP and AT was -0.34% and 4.13%, respectively. Conclusion The results measured by the methods provided by WS262-2017 and the manufacturer are in good agreement.
Last Update: 2020-10-29