DATE MARKETS

12-28-07 TG-51
PAGE
TECHNICAL NOTE page 1 of 4
NUMBER
4603-04
SUBJECT: Determining the kQ factor for Exradin cylindrical ionization chambers
not characterized in AAPM TG-51 protocol

The following information is provided as a service to our users and customers:

Determining the kQ factor for Exradin cylindrical ionization

chambers not characterized in AAPM TG-51 protocol

Please note the policy of the AAPM is that the local physicist is responsible for
this determination. This document is to provide essential information to the
physicist in order to complete this determination.

For cylindrical chambers not characterized in TG-51, the values of kQ can be

determined by one of two methods: (1) by finding a cylindrical chamber characterized
in the protocol and comparing some physical features to find a close match and (2) by
using a characterized cylindrical chamber with a known kQ and performing inter-
comparison measurements to determine kQ for the unknown cylindrical chamber in the
user’s high-energy photon beam.

METHOD 1
Section XI of AAPM’s TG-51 protocol describes how the user is to determine the kQ
factor for those cylindrical ionization chambers that are not characterized in the
protocol by prioritizing the physical features in which to compare to a listed cylindrical
chamber:

This protocol provides kQ data for the vast majority of

chambers used in clinical reference dosimetry in
North America as evidenced by the data on ADCL
calibrations. However, other cylindrical chambers
can be used by finding the closest matching chamber
for which data are given. The critical features are, in
order, the wall material, the radius of the air cavity,
the presence of an aluminum electrode, and the wall
thickness. As long as the wall material is matched
and the chamber is ‘normal,’ these matching data
should be accurate to within 0.5%. It is the
responsibility of the user to confirm this by comparing
the results to those of a calibrated cylindrical
chamber for which data are given in this protocol.

-AAPM’s TG-51 protocol, Med. Phys. 26 (9),

September 1999, pg 1860

3120 Deming Way • Middleton, WI 53562-2532 • WEB: standardimaging.com

Tel (608) 831-0025 • (800) 261-4446 • Fax (608) 831-2202
 DATE MARKETS
12-28-07 TG-51
PAGE
TECHNICAL NOTE page 2 of 4
NUMBER
4603-04
SUBJECT: Determining the kQ factor for Exradin cylindrical ionization chambers
not characterized in AAPM TG-51 protocol

Below is a chart with an inter-comparison of these four critical features for the entire
Exradin cylindrical ionization chamber product line. This is intended to help the
physicist see the similarities and differences between the chamber models.

C H A M B E R M O D E L
Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod
1 A1SL 2 A12 A12S 14 A14SL A16 A18 A19
1
Collector, Guard & Wall Material A, T A A, T, P A A A, T A A A A
Radius of air cavity [mm] 2.0 2.0 4.8 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.2 2.4 3.0
2 2 2
Aluminum collector present? no no no no no no no no no no
Wall Thickness [mm] 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.5
Collecting Volume [cc] 0.056 0.056 0.500 0.650 0.250 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.125 0.622

"A" - denotes Air-Equivalent (AE) material (Shonka Conductive C552 plastic)

"T" - denotes Tissue-Equivalent (TE) material (Shonka Conductive A150 plastic)
"P" - denotes Polystyrene-Equivalent (PE) material (Shonka Conductive D400 plastic)

1
the prefix of the chamber’s model number (ie the “A” in the A12), refers to the material of the shell, guard and collector
2
while there is no aluminum collector present, there is a small silver-plated copper wire which acts as the chamber’s collector
(Ø 0.3mm x 1.3mm)

Published kQ factors for Exradin Model A1 and Model A12

TG-51 protocol, Med. Phys. 26 (9), September 1999, pg 1857

kQ
%dd (10)x
58.0 63.0 66.0 71.0 81.0 93.0
Mod A1 0.999 0.998 0.996 0.990 0.972 0.948
Mod A12 1.000 0.999 0.996 0.990 0.972 0.948
(Subject to change based on future evaluation results)

METHOD 2
The concept of the inter-comparison method is straightforward: the Absorbed Dose to
Water at a fixed point in a water phantom is the same, regardless of which chamber is
being used to measure it.

This inter-comparison method of using a characterized cylindrical chamber with a

known kQ to determine the kQ for the unknown cylindrical chamber should be done as
follows:

3120 Deming Way • Middleton, WI 53562-2532 • WEB: standardimaging.com

Tel (608) 831-0025 • (800) 261-4446 • Fax (608) 831-2202
 DATE MARKETS
12-28-07 TG-51
PAGE
TECHNICAL NOTE page 3 of 4
NUMBER
4603-04
SUBJECT: Determining the kQ factor for Exradin cylindrical ionization chambers
not characterized in AAPM TG-51 protocol

1. Both chambers should have an ADCL or equivalent calibration done for

Absorbed Dose to Water at Co-60 energy.
2. It is strongly encouraged that the cylindrical chamber with the known kQ
factor be a Farmer-type cylindrical chamber – 0.6 cc, due to its historical
use as a reference chamber.
3. Only a liquid water phantom should be used, at least 30 cm x 30 cm x 30
cm in size.
4. The Point of Measurement of the characterized cylindrical chamber [refer to
Standard Imaging Tech Note 4659] with the known kQ factor is set at a
depth of 10 cm or dmax and the output is measured with the bias voltage
setting as stated in its calibration report in the user’s high-energy photon
beam. The Point of Measurement of the unknown cylindrical chamber then
replaces the characterized chamber, and its output is measured. This must
be repeated for both chambers at every beam quality desired.
5. By setting TG-51 Equation 6 for the characterized cylindrical chamber equal
to Equation 6 of the unknown cylindrical chamber, the kQ of the unknown
cylindrical chamber can be determined by the following equation:

 Pion 
60
c c c c c Co, c
* P * P * P * M * N
kQ = kQ *  u 
u c TP elec pol raw D, w
 P * P u * P u * P u * M u * N 60 Co, u 
 ion TP elec pol raw D, w 

where:
u superscript refers to a parameter of the chamber with unknown kQ
c superscript refers to a parameter of the characterized chamber with known kQ
kQ is the quality conversion factor
Pion is the recombination factor for the chamber [see below]
PTP is the temperature-pressure correction factor [This may be the same factor
depending on the temperature and pressure at the time of measurements]
Pelec is the electrometer calibration factor [if the electrometer and chamber are
calibrated separately]
Ppol is the polarity correction factor for the chamber [see below]
Mraw is the uncorrected ion chamber reading
60
ND,wCo is the absorbed-dose to water calibration factor at Co-60

3120 Deming Way • Middleton, WI 53562-2532 • WEB: standardimaging.com

Tel (608) 831-0025 • (800) 261-4446 • Fax (608) 831-2202
 DATE MARKETS
12-28-07 TG-51
PAGE
TECHNICAL NOTE page 4 of 4
NUMBER
4603-04
SUBJECT: Determining the kQ factor for Exradin cylindrical ionization chambers
not characterized in AAPM TG-51 protocol

The following precautions apply to Pion and Ppol:

1. Pion should be measured at full voltage (+300 V) and then at half voltage
(+150 V); then at negative half voltage (-150 V) and then at negative full
voltage (-300 V) and then back to full voltage (+300 V). The second full
reading (+300 V) should be close (≤ 0.5%) to the first full reading. Ensure
the system (ion chamber, extension cable, etc) has adequate time to settle
between voltage changes. [See Section VII(D) in TG-51 for more
information.]
2. Ppol should be measured for each chamber and should be ≤ 0.3%. Ensure
the system (ion chamber, extension cable, etc) has adequate time to settle
between voltage changes. [See Section VII(A) in TG-51 for more
information.]

Note: If there is a significant effect for either Pion or Ppol , it should be accounted
for as addressed in the TG-51 protocol.

Relevant articles:

1. AAPM TG-51, “AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-
energy photon and electron beams,” Med. Phys. 26 (9), 1847-1870 (1999).
2. D. W. O. Rogers, C. L. Yang, “Corrected relationship between %dd(10)x and
stopping-power ratios,” Med. Phys. 26 (4), 538-540 (1999). [correction to TG-
51 protocol]
3. D. W. O. Rogers, “The advantages of absorbed-dose calibration factors,” Med.
Phys. 19 (5), 1227-1239 (1992). [kQ definition]
4. D. W. O. Rogers, “A new approach to electron-beam reference dosimetry,”
Med. Phys. 25 (3), 310-320 (1998). [kQ and kecal calculation method]
5. J. R. Lowenstein, P. Balter, D. S. Followill, and W. F. Hanson, “Implementation
of TG-51: Practical Considerations,” Med. Phys. 27, 1429 (2000). [evaluation
of TG-51 requirements]
6. Fujio Araki and H. Dale Kubo, “Comparison of high-energy photon and electron
dosimetry for various dosimetry protocols,” Med. Phys. 29 (5), 857-868 (2002).
[comparing kQ factors from TG-51 with TRS-398 and JARP]

3120 Deming Way • Middleton, WI 53562-2532 • WEB: standardimaging.com

Tel (608) 831-0025 • (800) 261-4446 • Fax (608) 831-2202