Premium
SU‐E‐T‐269: The Evaluation of Copper as an Alternative for Cerrobend Electron Shielding
Author(s) -
Chu A,
Feng W,
Ahmad M,
Chen Z,
Nath R
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4735336
Subject(s) - copper , percentage depth dose curve , electromagnetic shielding , electron , optics , materials science , cathode ray , collimated light , nuclear medicine , physics , ionization chamber , nuclear physics , ionization , medicine , ion , composite material , quantum mechanics , metallurgy , laser
Purpose: To evaluate the replacement of Cerrobend by copper for electron beam cutouts. Methods: The dosimetric comparisons for circular copper‐and Cerrobend‐cutouts with diameters (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, and 12.5 cm) were made using electron beams with energies (6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV) from 3 Varian accelerators. A PTW Farmer chamber (0.125cc‐volume) was used for larger cutouts (diameters > 2cm), and an electron‐diode for the 2 smallest cutouts. Also a Markus parallel plate chamber was used. Results: (1) The tests showed little difference for the electron dosimetric characteristics, Eo, Eop, R50, Rp, and dmax. For larger cutout, the parameters were virtually the same for copper and Cerrobend. for smaller cutout (diameter = 3cm), small discrepancies were observed i.e. differences < 1mm for R50, Rp and dmax, =0.1MeV for Eop, and =0.3MeV for Eo. (2) The larger‐cutout outputs at dmax were also virtually the same (difference = 0.6%). For smaller cutouts (diameters = 3cm), the copper outputs were 2.0%∼5.0% higher than Cerrobend. (3) For lower energy electrons (<12MeV), more larger‐angle scattered electrons from higher‐Z Cerrobend raise the Cerrobend percentage‐depth‐dose (PDD) curve at shallow‐depths, and more forward scatter dose after dmax from lower‐Z copper shifts the copper PDD slightly away from the one of Cerrobend. for higher energy electrons (= 12MeV), the shallow‐dose difference becomes smaller for both cutouts, but even more forward‐scattered dose from copper shifts copper's PDD further away from Cerrobend's. (4) The higher X‐ray transmission through copper is also observable; i.e. 12%, 10%, and 7% for 20MeV, 16MeV, and 12MeV, respectively, but such small transmitted amount is clinically insignificant. Conclusions: Except for a higher x‐ray transmission, other dosimetric differences brought in by the replacement of Cerrobend by copper cutout are negligible.