An Absorbed Dose Water Calorimeter: Theory, Design, and Performance

Comparison of k Q factors measured with a water calorimeter in flattening filter free (FFF) and conventional flattening filter (cFF) photon beams

Recently flattening filter free (FFF) beams became available for application in modern radiotherapy. There are several advantages of FFF beams over conventional flattening filtered (cFF) beams, however differences in beam spectra at the point of interest in a phantom potentially affect the ion chamber response. Beams are also non-uniform over the length of a typical reference ion chamber and recombination is usually larger. Despite several studies describing FFF beam characteristics, only a limited number of studies investigated their effect on k _Q factors. Some of those studies predicted significant discrepancies in k _Q factors (0.4% up to 1.0%) if TPR_20,10 based codes of practice (CoPs) were to be used. This study addresses the question to which extent k _Q factors, based on a TPR_20,10 CoP, can be applied in clinical reference dosimetry. It is the first study that compares k _Q factors measured directly with an absorbed dose to water primary standard in FFF-cFF pairs of clinical photon beams. This was done with a transportable water calorimeter described elsewhere. The measurements corrected for recombination and beam radial non-uniformity were performed in FFF-cFF beam pairs at 6 MV and 10 MV of an Elekta Versa HD for a selection of three different Farmer-type ion chambers (eight serial numbers). The ratio of measured k _Q factors of the FFF-cFF beam pairs were compared with the TPR_20,10 CoPs of the NCS and IAEA and the %dd(10) _x CoP of the AAPM. For the TPR_20,10 based CoPs differences less than 0.23% were found in k _Q factors between the corresponding FFF-cFF beams with standard uncertainties smaller than 0.35%, while for the %dd(10) _x these differences were smaller than 0.46% and within the expanded uncertainty of the measurements. Based on the measurements made with the equipment described in this study the authors conclude that the k _Q factors provided by the NCS-18 and IAEA TRS-398 codes of practice can be applied for flattening filter free beams without additional correction. However, existing codes of practice cannot be applied ignoring the significant volume averaging effect of the FFF beams over the ion chamber cavity. For this a corresponding volume averaging correction must be applied.

Absorbed dose to water determination with ionization chamber dosimetry and calorimetry in restricted neutron, photon, proton and heavy-ion radiation fields

Absolute dose measurements with a transportable water calorimeter and ionization chambers were performed at a water depth of 20 mm in four different types of radiation fields, for a collimated (60)Co photon beam, for a collimated neutron beam with a fluence-averaged mean energy of 5.25 MeV, for collimated proton beams with mean energies of 36 MeV and 182 MeV at the measuring position, and for a (12)C ion beam in a scanned mode with an energy per atomic mass of 430 MeV u(-1). The ionization chambers actually used were calibrated in units of air kerma in the photon reference field of the PTB and in units of absorbed dose to water for a Farmer-type chamber at GSI. The absorbed dose to water inferred from calorimetry was compared with the dose derived from ionometry by applying the radiation-field-dependent parameters. For neutrons, the quantities of the ICRU Report 45, for protons the quantities of the ICRU Report 59 and for the (12)C ion beam, the recommended values of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) protocol (TRS 398) were applied. The mean values of the absolute absorbed dose to water obtained with these two independent methods agreed within the standard uncertainty (k = 1) of 1.8% for calorimetry and of 3.0% for ionometry for all types and energies of the radiation beams used in this comparison.

Studies of Excess Heat and Convection in a Water Calorimeter

To explain a difference of 0.5 % between the absorbed-dose standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), Seuntjens et al. suggest the fault lies with the NIST water calorimeter being operated at 22 °C and the method with which the measurements were made. Their calculations show that this difference is due to overprediction of temperature rises of six consecutive (60)Co radiation runs at NIST. However, the consecutive runs they refer to were merely preliminary measurements to determine the procedure for the NIST beam calibration. The beam calibration was determined from only two consecutive runs followed by water circulation to re-establish temperature equilibrium. This procedure was used for measurements on 77 days, with 32 runs per day. Convection external to the glass cylindrical detector assembly performed a beneficial role. It aided (along with conduction) in increasing the rate of excess heat transported away from the thin cylindrical wall. This decreased the rate of heat conducted toward the axially located thermistors. The other sources of excess heat are the: (1) non-water materials in the temperature probe, and (2) exothermic effect of the once-distilled water external to the cylinder. Finite-element calculations were made to determine the separate and combined effects of the excess heat sources for the afterdrift. From this analysis, extrapolation of the measured afterdrifts of two consecutive runs to mid radiation leads to an estimated over-prediction of no more than about 0.1 %. Experimental measurements contradict the calculated results of Seuntjens et al. that convective motion (a plume) originates from the thermistors operated with an electrical power dissipation as low as 0.6 μW, well below the measured threshold of 50 μW. The method used for detecting a plume was sensitive enough to measure a convective plume (if it had started) down to about the 10 μW power level. Measurements also contradict the NRCC calculations in predicting the behavior of the NIST afterdrifts.

Comparison of dosimetry calibration factors at the NRCC and the NIST. National Research Council of Canada. National Institute of Standards and Technology

In early 1998, three transfer ionization chambers were used to compare the air-kerma and absorbed-dose-to-water calibration factors measured by the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The ratios between the NRCC and NIST calibration factors are 0.9950 and 1.0061 in the case of the absorbed-dose-to-water and air-kerma standards, respectively. In the case of the standard of absorbed dose to water, the combined uncertainty of the ratio between the standards of the two laboratories is about 0.6% and consequently, the observed difference of 0.5% is not significant at the one sigma level. In the case of the standard of air kerma, the combined uncertainty of the ratio between the standards of the two laboratories is about 0.4%, and so the observed difference of 0.61% is significant at the one sigma level. However, this discrepancy is due to the known differences in the methods of assessing the wall correction factor at the two laboratories. Taking into account changes implemented in the standards that form the basis of the calibrations, the present results are consistent with those of the previous comparison done in 1990/91. As a direct result of these differences in the calibration factors, changing from an air-kerma based protocol following TG-21 to an absorbed-dose-to-water based protocol following TG-51, would alter the relationship between clinical dosimetry in Canada and the United States by about 1%. For clinical reference dosimetry, the change from TG-21 to TG-51 could result in an increase of up to 2% depending upon the ion chamber used, the details of the protocol followed and the source of traceability, either NRCC or NIST.

An ice calorimeter for photon dosimetry

A prototype absorbed-dose ice calorimeter has been constructed of ice made with triple-distilled water. The calorimeter was formed by sandwiching a thermistor between two blocks of ice. Initial measurements in a 60Co gamma-ray beam show that ice calorimetry is feasible, giving a signal to noise ratio of about 300 for a dose of 5 Gy.

Water Calorimetry: The Heat Defect

Domen developed a sealed water calorimeter at NIST to measure absorbed dose to water from ionizing radiation. This calorimeter exhibited anomalous behavior using water saturated with gas mixtures of H2 and O2. Using computer simulations of the radiolysis of water, we show that the observed behavior can be explained if, in the gas mixtures, the amount-of-substance of H2 and of O2 differed significantly from 50 %. We also report the results of simulations for other dilute aqueous solutions that are used for water calorimetry-pure water, air-saturated water, and H2-saturated water. The production of H2O2 was measured for these aqueous solutions and compared to simulations. The results indicate that water saturated with a gas mixture containing an amount-of-substance of H2 of 50 % and of O2 of 50 % is suitable for water calorimetry if the water is stirred and is in contact with a gas space of similar volume. H2-saturated water does not require a gas space but O2 contamination must be guarded against. The lack of a scavenger for OH radicals in "pure" water means that, depending on the water purity, some "pure" water might require a large priming dose to remove reactive impurities. The experimental and theoretical problems associated with air-saturated water and O2-saturated water in water calorimeters are discussed.

Report of the IPSM working party on low- and medium-energy x-ray dosimetry. Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine

New values of the factors required to convert the reading of a radiation dosemeter calibrated in terms of air kerma (or exposure) into absorbed dose to water for medium-energy x-radiation were given in a code of practice published by the IAEA in 1987. These are not considered to possess sufficient support from other sources. It is therefore recommended that the F-factors given in ICRU Report 23, and incorporated into the current HPA code of practice (1983), should continue to be used. Values of backscatter factors for low-energy x-radiation (below 140 kV or 10 mm Al HVL) in Supplement 17 of the British Journal of Radiology appear to be inaccurate. New values based on Monte Carlo calculations, and supported by new experimental data, are given for use in radiotherapy.

Absorbed dose in water. Comparison of several methods using a liquid ionization chamber

In the present investigation a liquid ionization chamber has been used as a transfer instrument for the quantity absorbed dose in water in a cobalt-60 gamma-ray beam. The characteristics of the liquid ionization chamber are described. The transferred dosimetric information has been compared with absorbed-dose determination using air-ionization-chamber dosimetry, water calorimetry and ferrous-sulphate dosimetry. The agreement between the different measured absorbed-dose values is very good, i.e. within 0.2%. This is an indication that the consistency in the methods used to determine absorbed dose in water is good. The impact of the new standard for air kerma in air, introduced in 1986 by the BIPM, on the air-ionization-chamber dosimetry is investigated. It is shown that any differences in the dosimetry when using the old or the new set of data cancel out for the cobalt-60 beam. The investigation also shows that the value of epsilon mG for the ferrous-sulphate dosimeter recommended in ICRU 35 for electrons can be used also in cobalt-60 beams.

Water calorimetric determination of absorbed dose by 280 kVp orthovoltage X-rays

The absorbed dose to water from 280 kVp orthovoltage X-rays was determined by a water calorimeter and compared with that determined by an ionization chamber. X-ray qualities of three different filtrations were investigated: they were characterized by 0.57, 0.695 and 1.76 mm of copper half value layers (HVL). The absorbed dose determined by the calorimeter is found higher by 7-9% than that by an ionization chamber. This difference was greater by 4% than that observed for a 60Co beam with the same two detectors.