PRIMARY STANDARDS of AIR

KERMA for 60CO and X-RAYS

&
ABSORBED DOSE in PHOTON
and ELECTRON BEAMS
Malcolm McEwen
 Definitions:
Standard – “instrument/measurement/artifact
intended to define, realize, conserve or reproduce a
unit
it or quantity
tit to
t serve as a reference”
f ”
Primary standard – “standard that is designated or
widely acknowledged as having the highest
metrological qualities and whose value is accepted
without reference to other standards of same quantity”
N ti
National l standard
t d d – “standard
“ d d recognizedi dbby a
national decision to serve as the basis for assigning
values to other standards of the q quantity
y concerned”
Secondary standard – “standard whose value is
assigned by comparison with a primary standard of the
same quantity”
quantity
 So that’s clear?

“I sshall
a not
o a
attempt
e p today
oday to
o further
u e de define
e [[it]……….but
] bu I
know it when I see it.”
Justice Potter Stewart, 1964
 ENERGY RANGES & QUANTITIES

10-50 keV – low energy x-rays Air Kerma

50-300
50 300 keV – medium energy xx-rays
rays Air Kerma
Cs-137 & Co-60 Air Kerma
Co-60 Absorbed Dose
Linac photon (x-ray) beams Absorbed Dose
Linac electron beams Absorbed Dose
 1. kV x
x-rays
rays – air kerma

The primary standard for 10-300 kV x-rays is the

F
Free Ai
Air Chamber
Ch b
 kV x
x-rays
rays – air kerma

The primary standard for 10-300 kV x-rays is the

F
Free Ai
Air Chamber
Ch b

W 1 Qair W 1
K air = X 
e 1- g mair e 1 - g

W/e = 33.97 eV

mair ?
 kV x
x-rays
rays – air kerma

Vair = AL The air volume is

defined mechanically
 Corrections corrections …..
Corrections,

Q air W  1
K air =     K att  K sc  K e  K hum  Ppol  Pion
 air  V  e  air 1 - g

• Katt - attenuation of the primary X-ray beam between the aperture and collecting volume

• Ksc - the extra ionization collected from electrons produced by photons scattered within
the chamber

• Ke - ionization lost when electrons strike the collecting electrode.

 An aside on Humidity

1.0035

We1.0030
are all familiar with correcting readings for
temperature
1.0025 and pressure (forget them here at
your peril)
1.0020
Khum

1.0015
Humidity, however, is generally ignored, but for kV
primary
1.0010
standards it is an important correction
1.0005
50 kV
C 60
Co-60
1.0000

0.9995
0 20 40 60 80 100

Relative Humidity (%)

 Uncertainties

Medium Energy Free-Air Chamber Standard Uncertainty

(MEES) Type A Type B

Ionization Current 0.03 0.03

Volume 0.01 0.04

Positioning 0.02 0.01

Correction Factors (excl. kh) 0.02 0.2

Humidityy kh 0.01 0.03

Physical Constants - 0.15

Air-Kerma Rate 0.044 0.257

Combined Uncertainty 0 26
0.26
 Alt
Alternative
ti designs
d i off free-air
f i chamber
h b
1. Attix design

 Designed by Attix in 1961

 Extensible length of chamber

• No guarding-electrode
system
• No voltage divider
• Eliminates stringent power
supply requirements
• Errors
E resulting
lti from
f field-
fi ld
nonuniformity are
eliminated
Atti chamber
Attix h b operating
ti principle
i i l

Front and back move

 Alt
Alternative
ti designs
d i off free-air
f i chamber
h b
2. PTB design

PTB – Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

 First developed
p in the 1920s

 Coaxial cylindrical design

• Smaller for the same
photon energy than
standard design
• Potentially transportable
 Si d
Size does matter….
tt
Secondary electrons should not
reach electrodes

50 kV » 70 mm
250 kV » 350 mm
Co-60???
 Si d
Size does matter….
tt
Secondary electrons should not
reach electrodes

50 kV » 70 mm
250 kV » 350 mm
Co-60???
 2. Cs
Cs-137
137 & Co
Co-60
60 – air kerma

The primary standard for Cs-137 & Co-60 gamma

rays is the Cavity Chamber
 Cavity theory before 9 am is a cruel and
unusual punishment

Overview
O i - measure the
th charge,
h apply
l a large
l
number of corrections and factors from tables
Detail - consult your textbook
 What is required?

Qair W  1  L  
K air =         en   K atttt  K sc  K an  K stem  K hum  Ppoll  Pion
 air  V  e  air 1 - g    g ,air    air, g
t h i

• A chamber
h b with
i h a very wellll
defined volume

• W/e & Lg/air

• Monte Carlo
• A lot of time
 3. Co
Co-60
60 – absorbed dose
An extension of the cavity chamber to determine absorbed
dose is possible
p

Beam Q/mair Dair

(W/e)airi

Prepl

(L/ρ)g,air

Dg Dw

 en /  / 
w en / 
g

 w,g  w,g
Uncertainties
 Extrapolation Chambers
• The biggest problem with cavity chambers is the
determination of the effective volume of the chamber
• Mechanical measurements are the only accurate method
but it’s difficult to be sure once the chamber is sealed up
• Extrapolation chambers offer an alternative:

Q W S 1
D med =  
x e   med,air A  air

A volume determination is replaced by an area determination

plus a differential length measurement
Extrapolation Chambers
 But…

Q W S 1
D med =  
x e   med,air A  air

• The A∆x determination turns out to be not that much

easier than a measurement of volume
• The value of S/ρ
/ρ isn’t veryy well known exceptp for graphite
g p
• Long term stability is not likely to be as good as for a fixed-
volume chamber (and standards labs love stability).

Extrapolation chambers are used, but

nott for
f external
t l beams
b
 4. Linac beams – absorbed dose

• There is a veryy obvious change

g when we move
to linac beams.
• The standards no longer look all the same
• Cavity chambers may have different geometries
but they’re basically identical

The primary standard for absorbed dose in linac

photon beams is the Calorimeter
 Aside – cavity theory

• Technically you can use cavity theory to derive absorbed

d
dose for
f hihigh-energy
h x-ray beams.
b
• You need a very thick-walled chamber or a very large
build-up
build up cap.
Tungsten-walled chambers have been built
Build-up caps begin to look like phantoms
• However, you still don’t have the ‘unique’ situation of
Co-60 of accurately knowing the values of W/e and Lg/air.
• An MV cavity standard can therefore only be viewed as a
secondary device.
 Absorbed dose calorimetry

Simple to define, a lifetime (well almost) to realize

Dm = cm ∆T

1. Measure a radiation-induced temperature rise.

2 Apply
2. l the
h specific
f heat
h capacity for
f the
h materiall
in question.

What’s the problem? It’s not cavity theory!

 Wh is
Why i measuring
i absolute
b l t dose
d is
i difficult?
diffi lt?

i) Doses of interest are small

ii) The quantity required is the dose in an
undisturbed phantom.
iii) Th quantity
The tit required
i d is
i the
th dose
d att a point
i t in
i
this phantom.
iv) Scattered radiation contributes a significant
proportion of the absorbed dose
v) Optimization of the measurement is difficult
vi) Dose is material dependent
Absorbed dose calorimeter – the basic components

R2
Rth+wire

R3 Vout

R4

bridge circuit

Vm
thermistor 3 0 10-6
3.0

2.5 10-6
bridge output signal
2.0 10-6

Vout(V)
calorimeter phantom 1.5 10-6

1.0 10-6

isolation 5.0 10-7

0.0 10-7
-200 -100 0 100 200
Time (s)
 D = c ΔT
ΔT will depend on the material but for radiotherapy
dosimetry it’s always small:

Dose = 2 Gy ΔT (water) = 0.5 mK

ΔT (graphite) = 2.9 mK

Our target uncertainty for ΔT is 0.1%, which means

sub-μK
sub μK precision.
This is why you don’t often find calorimeters in the
clinic.
 D = c ΔT
We re measuring a temperature rise due to the energy
We’re
absorbed from the radiation beam.
We therefore need a very stable background against
which
hi h we can measure thi
this ttemperature
t rise.
i
 D = c ΔT

Two options
Passive temperature control
(thermal isolation)
Active temperature control
(feedback system)
 D = c ∆T
What is used for the value of the specific heat capacity
depends on the calorimeter design.
3 main approaches:
1. Apply a value from tables – certain materials (e.g.
water)) have a well known value of c
2. Measure c for a sample of the material used in the
calorimeter
3 Evaluate an effective value of c for the complete
3.
calorimeter in situ
 Corrections corrections …..
Corrections,

Things are never that simple:

Dm = cm ∆T Πki
Correction factors are very dependent on the specific
calorimeter
ca o ete desdesign
g (a(and
d tthere
eea are
e lots)
ots) but may
ay
include:

Perturbation corrections
Conversion from one material to another
Beam uniformity correction (dose averaging)
Radiochemistry
The Calorimeter Gallery
 A Domen-type
A. Domen type graphite calorimeter

The calorimetric equivalent of the Farmer chamber

Uncertainties

This is dose to graphite

 Dose conversion
Utilises the photon-fluence scaling theorem

Requires knowledge
of virtual source
position
i i and d
corrections for:
Scatter
Attenuation
Pair production

Of course, you can use Monte

Of, M t Carlo,
C l if you must.
t
 Water/graphite scaling

Overall uncertainty in Dw ~ 0.5%

 B Other graphite calorimeters
B.
Calorimetrists can be quite creative……

“The remarkably
simple”
UK,, circa 1989
“The
The impressively
complex”
France, 2007
“The carefully
optimized”
BIPM, 2009
C. Water calorimeter development
 Water calorimetry – the big problems

1. Convection
2 Radiochemistry
2. R di h i
3. Containment

Water calorimetry – the solutions

1. Operate at 4 °C
2. High purity water, known composition of dissolved
gases
3 Careful design coupled with detailed thermal
3.
modelling
 D. The NRC water calorimeter
Combines designs of Domen and Seuntjens
 D. The NRC water calorimeter
Combines designs of Domen and Seuntjens
 D. The NRC water calorimeter
Combines designs of Domen and Seuntjens
 Uncertainties
60
Source and type of uncertainty (in %) Co 10 MV
Type A
Reproducibility dT/MU 0.08 0.15
Monitor reproducibility 0 02
0.02 0 12
0.12
Type B
cw,p (specific heat capacity) < 0.005 < 0.005
Thermistor sensitivity 0.08 0.08
kc ((heat loss)) 0.10 0.10
kp (vessel perturbation) 0.05 0.05
kHD (heat defect) 0.15 0.15
kdd (profile non-uniformity) 0.01 0.04
Positioningg calorimeter,, probes
p and vessel 0.13 0.13
Pdd 0.03 0.04
Pion 0.07 0.08
Ppol 0.01 0.04
PTP 0 05
0.05 0 05
0.05
Humidity 0.06 0.06
Positioning chamber 0.06 0.06
Overall ND,w 0.28 0.35

Not a single MC-derived factor

 Size matters (II)

The NRC water calorimeter is big and heavy:

85 cm cube,, 50 kg
g

Moving it within the lab is bad enough

Can we make something smaller?

Size matters (II)
 What about electron beams?

Standards for electron beam dosimetryy have lagged

gg
behind photon standards:
1974 – NIST graphite calorimeter
1990 – NPL th
1990s therapy-level
l l graphite
hit calorimeter
l i t

1988 – first calibration service for linac photon beams

1998 – first service for electron beams

Very few institutions presently involved

Problem #1
Electron range
Problem #2
Net charge
 Electron beam calorimetry

As for p
photon beams both graphite
g p and water
calorimeters are in use at primary laboratories
Water calorimetry is particularly tricky due to
perturbation
t b ti iissues off containment
t i t vessell coupled
l d with
ith
electron range
But… it has been done, and at a university!
 McGill University Water Calorimeter
Stewart, Seuntjens, et al

Pancake-type vessel and vertical beam geometry allow

measurements down to 6 MeV
 5. Non
Non-calorimetric
calorimetric standards for MV beams
What is often forgotten in the
discussion of standards is that the
radiation facilities available can be
crucial to the development and use
of the detectors.
detectors
METAS (the Swiss Primary Laboratory)

Scanditronix MM22 Microtron

METAS (the Swiss Primary Laboratory)
A primary standard based on the Fricke dosimeter
A primary standard based on the Fricke dosimeter
 G-value
G value determination

1.015

1.010
e ), normalissed

1.005

1.000
3+
G(Fe

0.995

0.990
1999-2000
1999 2000 data
2007 data

0.985
4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Es (MeV)
Comparison of standards
 Air ke
erma, relative
e to BIPM

0.990
0.992
0.994
0.996
0.998
1.000
1.002
1.004
1.006
1.008
1.010

tralia

ands

oland

UK
1. kV x

Italy

ngary
x-rays

nada

ussia

many

China

ustria
rays – air kerma

USA

ance
 2. kQ measurements in photon beams

1.010 Seuntjens et al
Elekta
1.000 TG-51 values
Quadratic fit
0 990
0.990

0.980
kQ

0.970

0.960

0.950

0.940
55 65 75 85 %dd10 x 95
 3. kQ measurements in electron beams
1.10

TG-51 k'R50
1 08
1.08 TRS 398 kQ,Qint
TRS-398
pendence

NPL graphite calorimeter

METAS Fricke
1.06 McGill water calorimeter
NRC water calorimeter
e energy dep

1.04
Relative

1.02

1.00

0.98
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

R50 (cm)
 Acknowledgements
c o edge e ts
Gerhard Stucki – METAS
Kristin Stewart
Stewart, Jan Seuntjens – McGill University
David Burns – BIPM
Carl Ross, John McCaffrey, Hong Shen – NRC
Simon Duane, Alan DuSautoy, Hugo Palmans – NPL
Josian Daures – LNHB