A comparative evaluation of luminescence detectors: RPL-GD-301, TLD-100 and OSL-AL₂O₃:C, using Monte Carlo simulations

Abstract

The luminescent dosimeters are widely used in clinical practice, for the monitoring of patient dose in external radiation therapy. Three of the most common dosimeter categories are the thermoluminescence (TLDs), the radiophotoluminescence (RPLs) and the optically stimulated luminescence (OSLs), with similar physical processes on their properties. The aim of the present study is to compare and evaluate the dosimetric properties of three specific luminescent detectors namely: a) RPL glass dosimeter, commercially known as GD-301, b) lithium fluoride TLD-100 (LiF:Mg,Ti) and c) carbon-doped aluminum oxide (Al2O3:C). For this purpose, Monte Carlo simulations were applied, using the MCNP5 code to estimate the responses of these dosimeters in terms of absorbed dose, output factor, the angular and energy dependence. In the present study, we found that the differences between the output factors were less than ±4.2% for all detector materials RPLGD, TLD and OSLD. The variations in sensitivity for angles up to ±80 degrees from the central axis of the beam were approximately 0.5%, 0.8% and 1.5% for the TLD-100, GD-301 and Al2O3:C, respectively. The energy dependence of the RPL and OSL dosimeters are stated as less than a 2.2%, and within 5.8% for TLD. K: Detector modelling and simulations I (interaction of radiation with matter, interaction of photons with matter, interaction of hadrons with matter, etc); X-ray detectors; Solid state detectors 1Corresponding author.

Energy response of FD-7 RPL glass dosimeter compared with LiF Mg, Ti and Al2003:C dosimeters

“…The luminescent detectors are materials, when irradiated emit a quantity of light proportional to the absorbed ionizing radiation. There are three groups of luminescence detectors applied in personal dosimetry: thermoluminescence detectors (TLDs), detectors based on optically stimulated luminescence (OSLDs) and detectors based on radiophotoluminescence (RPL) glasses [1][2][3][4].…”

Geometrical effects on luminescent dosimeter energy response

“…For the diameter of 13 mm, we observed a much lower energy response of 0.98, 0.96 and 0.98 for the RPLGD, TLD and OSLD dosimeters, respectively. In our previous work for a 15 MV beam [2], we found the energy dependence to be around 0.98, 0.96 and 0.99 for GD-301, TLD and OSLD, respectively. Compared to the current study, for a diameter of 3 to 13 mm, the results appear to be very similar for the three dosimeters, with a difference quit small or negligible.…”

“…398 regarding the determination of the absorbed dose in external radiotherapy [12]. To calculate the energy response (𝐹 𝑄,𝑄 0 ) we used the same formulas that as in our previous work [2,3]. The same materials were used as well, namely, a cubic water phantom of 30×30×30 cm 3 and three kinds of luminescent dosimeters: TLD (LiF:Mg; Ti), OSLD (Al 2 O 3 :C) and RPLGD (FD-7 glass) [3].…”

“…Luminescent dosimeters are materials that emit a quantity of light, proportional to the absorbed ionizing radiation when irradiated. There are three main groups of luminescence detectors applied in clinical dosimetry: thermo-luminescence dosimeter (TLD), Optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) and Radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters (RPLD) [1][2][3][4].…”

Relative dose-response from solid-state and gel dosimeters through Monte Carlo simulations

“…Despite the MCNPX and PENELOPE codes having been useful to simulate photon-electron transport through matter for kV and MV energy range applications in medical physics, the results showed significant differences, especially for the beam of 250 kV. A possible reason is the differences in cross-section values from the simulation codes, especially for lower photon energies and high atomic number materials [64,65], as shown in figure 5, since the GD-301 and TLD-100 have 12 and 8.3 effective atomic numbers, respectively [66].…”