The wall perturbation correction factor p(wall) in 60Co for Wellhöfer Roos-type plane-parallel ionization chambers is determined experimentally and compared with the results of a previous study using PTW-Roos chambers (Palm et al 2000 Phys. Med. Biol. 45 971-81). Five ionization chambers of the type Wellhöfer PPC-35 (or its equivalent PPC-40) are used for the analysis. Wall perturbation correction factors are obtained by assuming N(D,air) chamber factors determined by cross-calibration in a high-energy electron and in a 60Co gamma-ray beam to be equal, and by assigning any differences to the wall perturbation factor. The procedure yields a p(wall) value of 1.018 (u(c) = 0.010), which is slightly higher than the value 1.014 (u(c) = 0.010) formerly obtained for the PTW-Roos chambers using the N(D,air) method. The chamber-to-chamber variation in p(wall) for the Wellhöfer-Roos chambers is found to be very small, with a maximum difference of 0.3%. The effect of using new p(cav) values for graphite-walled Farmer-type chambers used in water in electron beams is to decrease p(wall) by approximately 0.5%. The long- and short-term stability of the Roos-type chambers manufactured by Wellhöfer is investigated by measurements at the IAEA Dosimetry Laboratory in Vienna, Austria, and at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Göteborg, Sweden. Calibrations made at the IAEA over several months show variations in the N(D,w) calibration factors larger than expected. based on previous experiences with PTW-Roos chambers. Measurements of the short-term stability of the Wellhöfer-Roos chambers show a marked increase in chamber response for the time the chambers are immersed in water, pointing to a possible problem in the chamber design. As a consequence of these findings, Wellhöfer is currently working on a re-design of the chamber to solve the stability problem.

The Dosimetry Laboratory of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Seibersdorf, Austria, calibrates reference standards in mammography x-ray beams for IAEA/WHO SSDL Network members (more than 80 laboratories worldwide). As a signatory of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA), the IAEA laboratory maintains a Quality Management System (QMS) complying with ISO 17025 and requires updated 'supporting evidence' for its dosimetry calibration and measurement capabilities (CMC), first published in Appendix C of the CIPM MRA key comparison database in 2007.For this purpose, an indirect comparison has been made between the air kerma standards of the IAEA and the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in the mammography x-ray range from 25 kV to 35 kV, using as transfer instruments two thin-window parallel-plate ionization chambers belonging to the IAEA.The IAEA and BIPM standards for mammography x-rays are shown to be in agreement within the standard uncertainty of the comparison of 5.5 parts in 103. This agreement can be used to support the calibration and measurements capabilities of the IAEA listed in Appendix C of the key comparison database.Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCRI, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

The accuracy and traceability of the calibration of radiotherapy dosimeters is of great concern to those involved in the delivery of radiotherapy. It has been proposed that calibration should be carried out directly in terms of absorbed dose to water, instead of using the conventional and widely applied quantity of air kerma. In this study, the faithfulness in disseminating standards of both air kerma and absorbed dose to water were evaluated, through comparison of both types of calibration for three types of commonly used radiotherapy dosimeters at 60Co gamma beams at a few secondary and primary standard dosimetry laboratories (SSDLs and PSDLs). A supplementary aim was to demonstrate the impact which the change in the method of calibration would have on clinical dose measurements at the reference point. Within the estimated uncertainties, both the air kerma and absorbed dose to water calibration factors obtained at different laboratories were regarded as consistent. As might be expected, between the SSDLs traceable to the same PSDL the observed differences were smaller (less than 0.5%) than between PSDLs or SSDLs traceable to different PSDLs (up to 1.5%). This can mainly be attributed to the reported differences between the primary standards. The calibration factors obtained by the two methods differed by up to about 1.5% depending on the primary standards involved and on the parameters of calculation used for 60Co gamma radiation. It is concluded that this discrepancy should be settled before the new method of calibration at 60Co gamma beams in terms of absorbed dose to water is taken into routine use.

A comparison of the air kerma standards for 137 Cs and 60 Co gamma ray beams was performed between the NIST and the IAEA. Two reference class ionization chambers owned by the IAEA were used as part of this comparison and were calibrated at each facility. The calibration coefficients, N K , were determined for both chambers and in both gamma-ray beams. The measurements were performed at the IAEA and NIST facilities starting in the fall of 2009 and were completed in 2010. The comparison ratio of the calibration coefficients for each chamber, N K,IAEA / N K,NIST , between the IAEA and NIST were 0.999 and 0.997 for the 137 Cs and 60 Co gamma ray beams respectively. The relative standard uncertainty for each of these ratios is 0.5 %.

No abstract