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

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the energy dependence of Radio-Photoluminescent Glass Dosimeter (RPLGD) with thermoluminescent LiF:Mg,Ti (TLD-100) and Optically stimulated luminescent (Al2O3:C) dosimeters. In this work, a Monte Carlo simulation with MCNP5 was carried out to estimate the energy responses of these dosimeters. The following common clinical radiation qualities were applied: 50-300 kVp X-rays, 4-20 MeV electron beam and 60 Co γ rays as the reference. The current study is compared to previous measurements and MC simulation in literature. For kilovoltage photon beams, the dosimeters displayed an increasing response with decreasing energy with a significant over response factor at 70 kVp of RPLGD and Al2O3:C about 4.39 and 3.40 respectively, and a maximum of about 1.40 for TLD-100. For electron beams were found to be with a maximum of 5.1% and 3.5% for RPLGD and TLD-100 dosimeters respectively, for OSLD a maximum of 6% in 6-20 MeV and 11% at 4 MeV. This paper has clearly confirmed that all three dosimeters should be used with an energy compensation filter in low energy X-ray (< 250 kV). All studied dosimeters are recommended for clinical and experimental use particularly in radiotherapy. 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.

Geometrical effects on luminescent dosimeter energy response

“…MC calculations has shown that globally the energy response decreases with the increase of the diameter for all three dosimeters: changing from a diameter of 1 mm to 13 mm decreases the energy response factor from 4.66 to 4.36 (6.4%), from 1.35 to 1.33 (1.5%) and from 3.61 to 3.31 (8.3%) for the RPLGD, TLD and OSLD, respectively. By comparing the results in this study with our previous work [3], we found a difference of 0.84%, 5% and 2.36% for RPLGD, TLD and OSLD, respectively. Also, MC calculations of the energy response for TLD, were carried out by Waldeland and Malinen [13].…”

“…When the diameter changes from 1 mm to 13 mm, the energy response varies from 0.94 to 0.99, from 0.95 to 0.99 and from 0.91 to 1.00 for the RPLGD, TLD and OSLD, respectively. The comparison of the current MC values, for a diameter of 3 to 13 mmwith our previous work [3], shows a smaller difference of 2.48%, 0.51% and 4.01% for the three dosimetrs.…”

“…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].…”

Application of luminescent detectors in quality assurance of clinical electron beam

“…Compared with TLDs, the first advantage of RPLGDs is their good reproducibility: luminescent centres are not eliminated by the reading process (i.e. the reading process is non-destructive) [1][2][3][4]. OSLDs have other advantages such as small size availability suitable for spot measurements, a wide range of linearity and high sensitivity, rapid reading resulting in high productivity and the use of relatively simple automated and semi-automated readers [5].…”