Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Energy and Depth Response of Thermoluminescent Dosimeters and Ionization Chambers in Water for Kilovoltage X-Ray Beams

no image available
M Lawless

M Lawless*, B Palmer , L DeWerd , University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI


WE-EF-207-11 (Wednesday, July 15, 2015) 1:45 PM - 3:45 PM Room: 207

Purpose: To assess the effects of changes in beam quality on detector response in the kilovoltage energy range by modulating the x-ray tube voltage and the measurement depth in water.

Methods: Measurements were performed with TLD-100 and TLD-100H thermoluminescent dosimeters and an A12 farmer-type ionization chamber. To assess the energy response of the detectors, irradiations were performed at a depth of 3 cm in a custom-built thin-window water phantom using the moderately filtered x-ray beams at the UWADCL (20 kVp-250 kVp) and a Co-60 beam.

The x-ray beams and detectors were modeled using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code. The model was validated by simulating dose to the collecting volume of an A12 farmer chamber and comparing it with measured A12 signal as a function of depth. Dose was tallied to each detector and to water for comparison with measurements. Simulations were used to calculate the predicted energy response, which was compared to the measured response of each detector. Dose to each detector and dose to water as a function of depth were also simulated.

Results: Detector output per dose to water was found to deviate by up to 15%, 20% and 30% as a function of energy relative to Co-60 for the A12, TLD-100H and TLD-100, respectively. The EGSnrc simulations produced results similar to the measurements for ionization chambers, but discrepancies of up to 30% were observed for TLD-100H. Simulated detector response as a function of depth was found to vary by up to 3%.

Conclusion: These results suggest that changes in beam quality in kilovoltage x-ray beams can have a significant impact on detector response. In-water detector response was found to differ from the previously investigated in-air response. Deviations in detector response as a function of depth were less significant, but could potentially cause dosimetric errors if ignored.

Contact Email: