Annals of Nuclear Energy 54 (2013) 240–244

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Annals of Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anucene

Calculation of the humidity correction factor in air kerma strength

measurement for 125I and 103Pd brachytherapy sources and its
uncertainty by Monte Carlo method
S. Kashian ⇑, G. Raisali, H. Khalafi
Radiation Applications Research School, Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Humidity is one of the sources of systematic error in the absolute measurement of air kerma strength of
Received 3 July 2012 125
I and 103Pd low energy brachytherapy sources by using free air ionization chambers. In this paper, the
Received in revised form 20 November 2012 humidity correction factor and its uncertainty for several environmental conditions have been calculated
Accepted 20 November 2012
by applying an indigenous developed uncertainty analysis algorithm programmed in FORTRAN. The
Available online 23 December 2012
results of the analysis showed that the humidity could affect the corrected measured source strength
value by about 0.2%.
Keywords:
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Relative humidity
Low energy brachytherapy sources
Air kerma strength
Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis
Correction factor

1. Introduction
Nowadays low energy brachytherapy sources, such as 125I and
103
Pd are used extensively for treatment of various kinds of cancers
like eye, head, neck, breast, cervix and especially prostate cancers
(Dennis, 2000; Meigooni et al., 2004; Bernard, Vynckier, 2005).
For the application of these sources, accurate determination of
their strength is one of the most important issues for radiothera-
peutic treatment.
In 1988, the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American
Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a task group
to assimilating information of brachytherapy sources. The report of
this task group (AAPM TG43) established the air kerma strength
‘‘SK’’ as the recommended metric for the source strength of these
sources (Rivard et al., 2004).
Air kerma strength, SK, as given in Eq. (1) (Rivard et al., 2004;
Nath et al., 1995), is defined as the air kerma rate K_ d ðdÞ, in vacuo
due to photons of energy greater than the cut off value ‘‘d’’ at dis-
tance d, multiplied by the square of this distance ‘‘d2’’
2 measurements can be done in different volumes. The maximum
SK ¼ K_ d ðdÞ  d ð1Þ
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Nuclear
Science and Technology Research Institute, Radiation Applications Research School,
End of North Karegar Ave, PO Box 11365-3486, Tehran, Postal Code 1439951113,
Iran. Tel.: +98 2188221222; fax: +98 2188221219.
E-mail addresses: skashian@aeoi.org.ir (S. Kashian), graisali@aeoi.org.ir (G.
Raisali), hkhalafi@aeoi.org.ir (H. Khalafi).
The energy cut off, d, is intended to exclude very low energy or
contaminant photons (for example characteristic X-rays originat-
ing in the outer layers of the source titanium cladding) that in-
crease K_ d ðdÞ without contributing significantly to dose at
distances greater than 0.1 cm in tissue. The value of d is typically
5 keV for low energy photons emitted by brachytherapy sources,
and is dependent on the application (Rivard et al., 2004).
The strength of low energy brachytherapy sources, 125I and
103
Pd, is measured by standard free air ionization chambers, in
primary standard dosimetry laboratories. At present, three sys-
tems of parallel plate free air ionization chambers have been con-
structed for the absolute measurement of air kerma strength in
low energy brachytherapy sources (Seltzer et al., 2003; Selbach
et al., 2008; Culberson et al., 2006). In this regard, Nuclear Science
and Technology Research Institute in Iran recently, has designed
and constructed a parallel plate free air ionization chamber for
absolute measurement of air kerma strength of 125I and 103Pd
low energy brachytherapy sources. This free air ionization cham-
ber has movable electrodes and different size of apertures, so
and minimum of collecting volume are 5089 cm3 and 508 cm3
respectively.
For absolute measurement of air kerma strength by this cham-
ber, several correction factors should be calculated to take into ac-
count the systematic effects of various factors. One of the sources
of these systematic errors is the effect of humidity. In this research
the humidity correction factor is calculated for various relative

0306-4549/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2012.11.016
 S. Kashian et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 54 (2013) 240–244 241

humidity values including its uncertainty by applying an indige- where P is the air pressure, Mi is the molar mass of various constit-
nous Monte Carlo analysis algorithm programmed in FORTRAN. uents of the dry air, xi is their molar fraction, Mv is the molar mass of
water vapor, xv is the mole fraction of water vapor, Z is the com-
2. Materials and methods pressibility factor, R is the molar gas constant and T is the termody-
namical temperature in kelvin.
Air kerma is the sum of initial kinetic energies of all charged Elements and compounds in the dry air with their mole frac-
particles liberated by uncharged particles per unit mass of air tions are given in Table 1.
(ICRU Report 60, 1998). Air kerma rate can be calculated by the fol- The mole fraction xv is determined by the following equation
lowing equation: (Giacomo, 1982):
 
X l h 
K_ air ¼ /_ E Ei tr ð2Þ xv ¼ 1:00062 þ 3:14  108 P þ 5:6  107 t 2
i
i
q Ei p

where /_ Ei is the photon fluence rate at energy Ei and ðlqtr ÞEi is the
 expð1:2811805  105 T 2  1:9509874  102 T
mass energy transfer coefficient at energy Ei. 6:3536311  103
As recommended by the AAPM, the strength of brachytherapy
þ 34:04926034  Þ ð7Þ
T
sources should be calculated in terms of the air kerma strength.
The results of a free air ionization chamber measurement of low where h is the relative humidity, t is the temperature in °C, T is the
energy photons are then determined according to the following temperature in kelvin and P is the pressure expressed in pascal.
equation (Seltzer et al., 2003): By determination of mole fraction of water vapor in moist air,
mass energy transfer coefficient can be calculated by the following
  Y2
W Inet d equation:
SK ¼ ki ð3Þ
e q V
air air eff ð1  
g Þ X
i
  ð1  xv Þð xi Mi =xi Þ    
where W/e is the mean energy required to produce an ion pair in air, ltr i ltr xv M v ltr
¼ þ ð8Þ
Inet is the measured net ion current (current minus background and q H M q D M q water
leakage), d is the source-to-aperture distance, qair is the density of
where ðlqtr Þwater is the mass energy transfer coefficient of water and
air, Veff is the product of the aperture area and the length of the col- P
M ¼ ð1  xv Þð i xi Mi =xi Þ þ xv M v with other parameters as defined
lecting volume, g is the fraction of the initial electron energy lost by
before.
bremsstrahlung production in air, for low energy photons (<40 keV)
The variation of WH/WD as a function of the partial pressure of
emitted by 125I and 103Pd seeds, g is very small (<0.00065) which is
water vapor is shown in Fig. 1 (Seltzer, 1993). The partial pressure
neglected and ki is the correction factor due to the effects of air
of water vapor is equal to the mole fraction of water vapor in moist
attenuation, scattering of photons, recombination, humidity, etc.
air. Niatel’s data has been used in this paper, by fitting a curve.The
(Kashian et al., 2011; Burns and Büermann, 2009; Burns and Kess-
uncertainty in the correction factor has been calculated by a devel-
ler, 2009; Grimbergen et al., 1998; Lee et al., 2005; Lin and Chu,
oped Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis algorithm written in FOR-
2006).
TRAN. In this program, a normal distribution has been attributed
The net ionization current ‘‘Inet’’ is given by the following
to each of the uncertain parameters of Eq. (5). Humidity correction
equation:
factor is calculated for each set of randomly sampled values of var-
K_ qair V eff ious uncertain parameters. The correction factor has been calcu-
Inet ¼ ð4Þ lated for several set of sampled values, and finally a distribution
ðWe Þair
has been obtained for the correction factor, giving the mean, stan-
This equation is used for determination of net current in air. dard deviation and standard deviation of the standard deviation.
Humidity affects the results of the free air chamber measurements The mean is the humidity correction factor and the standard devi-
in a number of ways including, photon mass energy transfer coef- ation is its uncertainty. The relative standard deviation for various
ficient, air density and the mean energy required to produce an ion parameters are considered to be 2%, 2%, 0.1%, 0.1%, 0.1% and 0.1%
pair in air. For the combined effects of these changes, a humidity for mass energy transfer coefficient in air ‘‘(ltr/q)air’’, mass energy
correction factor ‘‘khumidity’’ can be calculated by the following transfer coefficient in water ‘‘(ltr/q)water’’, temperature ‘‘T’’, pres-
equation: sure ‘‘P’’, relative humidity ‘‘h’’ and the ratio of the mean energy re-
P   quired to produce an ion pair for humid air to dry air ‘‘ðW H
Þ’’,
  j /Ej Ej lqtr
 WD
Inet ðin dry airÞ qD W H E respectively.
khumidity ¼ ¼ ð   jD Þ ð5Þ
Inet ðin humid airÞ qH W D P / Ej ltr Ej
This program has been divided in the following sections:
j q Ej
H

where q is the air density, W is the mean energy expended in air per Table 1
ion pair formed when the initial kinetic energy of a charged particle Composition of dry air (Giacomo, 1982).

is completely dissipated in air and ðlqtr ÞEi is the mass energy transfer Components Molar mass (in 103 kg/mol) Mole fraction (%)
coefficient at energy Ei. The indices ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘H’’ indicate the param- N2 28.0134 78.101
eters for dry and humid air respectively. O2 31.9988 20.939
The density of humid air ‘‘qH’’ was evaluated by equation of Gia- Ar 39.948 0.917
como (1982), in which the density of moist air can be obtained Co2 44.010 0.040
Ne 20.18 18.2  104
from thermodynamical temperature, atmospherical pressure and
He 4.0 5.2  104
the humidity of air as given in the following equation (Giacomo, CH4 16.0 1.5  104
1982). Kr 83.8 1.1  104
!" !!# H2 2 0.5  104
P X X N2O 44 0.3  104
qair ¼ xi Mi =xi 1  xv 1  M v = xi M i =xi ð6Þ CO 28 0.2  104
ZRT i i Xe 131 0.1  104
242 S. Kashian et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 54 (2013) 240–244

Fig. 1. The mean energy required to produce an ion pair for humid air to dry air ‘‘WH/WD’’ as a function of the relative partial pressure (or mole fraction) of water vapor.
Barnard’s curve (Barnard et al., 1960) is theoretical (assuming independent contributions), Niatel’s curve (Niatel, 1969) is based on measurements of ionization current in a
free air chamber. The errors correspond to a 95% confidence level (ICRU Report 31, 1979).

1. Calculation of the mole fraction of water in humid air, that is a Table 2

function of relative humidity, temperature and pressure. The uncertainty in (qD/qH) and WH/WD for various relative humidity values at
2. Calculation of the density of humid air, the ratio of the density T = 25 °C and P = 750 mm Hg (The uncertainties given according to two standard
deviations).
of dry air to humid air and the uncertainty in this ratio.
3. Calculation of the ratio of the mean energy required to pro- Relative humidity (%) Uncertainty in qD/qH Uncertainty in WH/WD
duced an ion pair in dry air to humid air and the uncertainty 2 1.99  105
2.00  103
in this ratio. 5 2.18  105 2.00  103
4. Calculation of the ratio of the air kerma rate in dry air to humid 7 2.80  105 1.99  103
9 4.00  105 1.99  103
air and the uncertainty in this ratio.
10 4.51  105 1.99  103
5. Calculation of the humidity correction factor and the associated 20 8.75  105 1.99  103
uncertainty for various relative humidity in different tempera- 30 1.29  104 1.99  104
tures and pressures. 40 1.74  104 1.99  104
50 2.17  104 1.99  104
60 2.62  104 1.99  104
3. Results 70 3.05  104 1.99  104
80 3.50  104 1.98  104
90 3.95  104 1.98  104
The density of dry air to humid air and the ratio of the mean en- 100 4.40  104 1.98  104
ergy required to produce an ion pair have been evaluated for var-
ious relative humidity values and the result and the result is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The relevant uncertainties, for various relative used in the calculations. The ratio of air kerma rate in dry to humid
humidity values are given in Table 2. air has been calculated and the results have been illustrated in
Mass energy transfer coefficient for humid air is calculated by Fig. 3. By increasing of humidity, mass energy transfer coefficient
Eq. (8) for photons emitted by low energy brachytherapy sources of humid air is increased so the ratio of air kerma rate in dry to hu-
125
I and 103Pd. Relative energy spectra of emergent photons, mass mid air is decreased. The uncertainty in this ratio is given in
energy transfer coefficient for dry air and water for 125I and 103Pd Table 4.
low energy brachytherapy sources are given in Table 3 (Seltzer The humidity correction factor as a function of relative humid-
et al., 2003; Seltzer, 1993; Seltzer and Hubbell, 1995), which were ity for various temperatures and pressures are calculated and the
results for both 125I and 103Pd brachytherapy sources are illustrated
in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. According to Eq. (5), humidity correc-
tion factor includes three terms. The first term is the ratio of air
density for dry to humid air, the second term is the ratio of mean
energy required to produce an ion pair in humid to dry air and
the last term is the air kerma rate in dry to humid air. The first
and the third terms increase, but the second term decreases, by
increasing of relative humidity. It should also be mentioned that
the amount of reduction in the second term is high for low relative
humidity then is reduced, therefore by increasing the relative
humidity up to 10% humidity correction factor was decreased
and then was increased.
Depending on the relative humidity, the humidity correction
factor may be less or greater than one. Therefore, the ionization
current can be measured less or more than real value based on
the relative humidity.
In our laboratory conditions (21 C 6 t 6 25 C; 860hP 6
P 6 865hP; 22% 6 h 6 26%), humidity correction factor is calcu-
lated about 0.9973–0.9977 and the associated relative standard
Fig. 2. Variation of WH/WD and qD/qH with relative humidity at T = 25 °C, and uncertainty is about 0.1% for 125I. These results are comparable
P = 750 mm Hg. with the reported result by Seltzer and his coworkers for humidity
 S. Kashian et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 54 (2013) 240–244 243

Table 3
Relative energy spectra of emergent photons and mass energy transfer coefficient of dry air and water for 125I and 103Pd brachytherapy sources (Seltzer et al., 2003; Seltzer, 1993;
Seltzer and Hubbell, 1995).
a
Sources Emissions Energy (keV) Relative spectra of emergent photon (ltr/q)air (cm2/g) (ltr/q)water (cm2/g)
103 b
Pd Seed c 39.76 0.0016 0.0695 0.0706
Rh K b2;4 23.17 0.0321 0.339 0.345
Rh K b1;3;5 22.72 0.1731 0.361 0.367
Rh K a1 20.216 0.5620 0.521 0.532
Rh K a2 20.074 0.2312 0.533 0.544
125
I Seedc c 35.49 0.0521 0.0943 0.0956
Te K b2;4 31.70 0.0347 0.130 0.132
Te K b1;3;5 30.98 0.1556 0.140 0.141
Te K a1 27.473 0.4981 0.201 0.203
Te K a2 27.202 0.2595 0.207 0.210
a
Relative energy spectra of photons emergent in the transaxial direction from prostate seed, derived from HPGe spectroscopy.
b
For Theragenics/Indigo Medical TheraSeed 200, North American Scientific PdGold (MED3633), International Brachytherapy Inter Source103, Bebig, Best Medical Inter-
national Pd-103.
c
For Nycomed-Amersham 6702, North American Scientific/Mentor IoGold (MED3631-A/M), Bebig/UroMed Symmetra I-125, International Brachytherapy Intersource125,
SourceTech Medical STM1250, Best Medical International I-125.

125
Fig. 4. Humidity correction factor for various relative humidity values for I
Fig. 3. The ratio of air kerma rate in dry air to humid air as a function of relative
brachytherapy source.
humidity at T = 25 °C, P = 750 mm Hg.

Table 4
The uncertainty in the ratio of air kerma rate in dry air to humid air for various
relative humidity values at T = 25 °C and P = 750 mm Hg (the uncertainties given
according to two standard deviations).

Relative Uncertainty in the ratio of air Uncertainty in the ratio of air

humidity kerma rate in dry to humid air kerma rate in dry to humid air
(%) for 103Pd for 125I
2 1.89  105 2.16  105
5 5.29  105 5.01  105
7 7.61  105 7.22  105
9 9.69  105 9.16  105
10 1.08  104 1.03  104
20 2.16  104 2.05  104
30 3.25  104 3.09  104
40 4.33  104 4.12  104
50 5.43  104 5.16  104 Fig. 5. Humidity correction factor for various relative humidity values for 103
Pd
60 6.52  104 6.19  104 brachytherapy source.
70 7.61  104 7.24  104
80 8.71  104 8.28  104
90 9.81  104 9.33  104
100 1.09  103 1.04  103 of the order of 106 which is sufficiently low to rely on the calcu-
lated standard deviations. The relative uncertainty in the humidity
correction factors were calculated for various relative humidity
values, temperatures and pressures. Calculations show that, the
correction factor (0.9982) and relative standard uncertainty
relative uncertainties according to two standard deviations are
(0.07%) for 125I (Seltzer et al., 2003). The differences between re-
about 0.2%.
sults are due to the differences between the air conditions.
The standard deviations of the correction factors have been cal-
culated from 106 sets of sampled values. The calculations have 4. Conclusion
been also repeated 100 times in order to calculate the standard
deviation of the standard deviation of the correction factor. Results Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute in Iran has
for the relative standard deviation of the standard deviation were designed and constructed a free air ionization chamber for
244 S. Kashian et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 54 (2013) 240–244
absolute measurement of air kerma strength of 125I and 103Pd low
energy brachytherapy sources.
Humidity is one of the sources of systematic error in the mea-
surement of air kerma strength. This effect should be corrected
by humidity correction factor. In the absolute measurement,the
uncertainty in air kerma strength is strongly dependent on the
uncertainty in the applied correction factors.
Humidity correction factors and their uncertainty have been
calculated by applying an indigenous uncertainty Monte Carlo
analysis algorithm programmed in FORTRAN.
The results show that, against to other sources of systematic er-
ror, the ionization current can be measured less or more than the
actual value depending on various relative humidity values of air.
The correction factors show a minimum at 10% relative humidity
and a maximum at 100% relative humidity. The uncertainties of
the calculated humidity correction factors for various relative
humidity values are of the order of 0.2% (coverage factor of 2) for
both of 125I and 103Pd low energy brachytherapy sources.
References
Burns, D.T., Büermann, L., 2009. Free air ionization chamber. Metrologia 46, S9–S23.
Burns, D.T., Kessler, C., 2009. Diaphragm correction factors for free air chamber
standards for air kerma in X-rays. Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 2737–2745.
Culberson, W.S., Dewerd, L.A., Anderson, D.R., Micka, J.A., 2006. Large ionization
chamber with variable apertures for air-kerma measurements of low-energy
radiation sources. Rew. Sci. Inst. 77, 015105.
Dennis, L., 2000. The role of active treatment in early prostate cancer. Radiother.
Oncol. 57, 251–258.
Giacomo, P., 1982. Equation for the determination of the density of moist air.
Metrologia 18, 33–40.
Grimbergen, T.W.M., van Dijk, E., de Vries, W., 1998. Correction factors for the NMi
free air ionization chamber for medium-energy X-rays calculated with the
Monte Carlo method. Phys. Med. Biol. 43, 3207–3224.
ICRU Report 31, 1979. Average Energy Required to Produce on Ion Pair ,
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda,
MD.
ICRU Report 60 1998. Fundamental quantities and units for ionizing radiation
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Bethesda MD.
Kashian, S., Raisali, G., Eskandari, M.R., Khalafi, H., 2011. Optimization of aluminum
thickness for absorption of undesired Ti K X-rays in the measurement of low
energy brachytherapy source strength. Ann. Nucl. Energy 38, 632–636.
Lee, J.H., Kotler, L.H., Büermann, L., Hwang, W.S., Chiu, J.H., Wang, C.F., 2005. The
performance of the INER improved free air ionization chamber in the
comparison of air kerma calibration coefficients for medium energy X-rays.
Radiat. Measurements 39, 1–10.
Lin, U.T., Chu, C.H., 2006. Correction factors for the INER-improved free-air
ionization chambers calculated with the Monte Carlo method. Appl. Radiat.
Isot. 64, 608–614.
Meigooni, A.S., Zhang, H., Clark, J.R., Rachabatthula, V., Koona, R.A., 2004. Dosimetric
characteristics of the new RadioCoilTM 103Pd wire line source for use in
permanent brachytherapy implants. Med. Phys. 31 (11), 3095–3105.
Nath, R., Anderson, L.L., Luxton, G., Weaver, K.A., Williamson, J.F., Meigooni, A.S.,
1995. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the
AAPM radiation therapy committee task group No. 43. Med. Phys. 22, 209–234.
Rivard, M.J., Coursey, B.M., Dewerd, L.A., Hanson, W.F., Saiful Huq, M., Ibbott, G.S.,
Mitch, M.G., Nath, R., Williamson, J.F., 2004. Update of AAPM task group No 43
report A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med. Phys.
31 (3), 633–674.
Selbach, H.J., Kramer, H.M., Culberson, W.S., 2008. Realization of reference air-
kerma rate for low-energy photon sources. Metrologia 45, 422–428.
Seltzer, S.M., Lamperti, P.J., Loevinger, R., Mitch, M.G., Weaver, J.T., Coursey, B.M.,
2003. New national air- kerma- strength standards for 125I and 103Pd
brachytherapy seeds. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 108, 337–358.
Seltzer, S.M., 1993. Calculation of photon mass energy-transfer and mass energy-
absorption coefficients. Rad. Res. 136, 147–170.
Seltzer, S.M., Hubbell, J.H., 1995. Tables and graphs of photon mass attenuation
coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients for photon energies 1 keV
to 20 MeV for elements Z = 1 to 92 and some dosimetric materials Publication of
the Japanese Society of Radiological Technology, ISSN 1340-7716, also as
Hubbell, J.H., Seltzer, S.M., 1995. Tables of X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients
and Mass Energy-Absorption Coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for Elements Z = 1 to
92 and 48 Additional Substances of Dosimetric Interest, Report NISTIR 5632,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.