2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2015.11.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigation of the response variability of ionization chambers for the standard transfer of SIR-Spheres ®

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
4
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(25 reference statements)
3
4
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The small variation in the characteristics of the five Sirtex shipping vials suggests that using a single volume adjustment curve for all vials of resin-based 90 Y-labelled microspheres will make negligible difference to the shape of the volume correction curve. The variation in mass of the vials was consistent with other publications [ 13 , 15 ] but in this instance the difference between maximum and minimum ionization chamber response was about 2% which is smaller than the 5–14% difference in chamber response reported by Thiam et al [ 13 ] and less than the 3.4% uncertainty in variation between vials reported by Ferreira et al [ 15 ]. Other studies have shown that different dose calibrators can have different sensitivity to the variation in vial thickness which can cause a 4% difference in chamber response [ 13 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The small variation in the characteristics of the five Sirtex shipping vials suggests that using a single volume adjustment curve for all vials of resin-based 90 Y-labelled microspheres will make negligible difference to the shape of the volume correction curve. The variation in mass of the vials was consistent with other publications [ 13 , 15 ] but in this instance the difference between maximum and minimum ionization chamber response was about 2% which is smaller than the 5–14% difference in chamber response reported by Thiam et al [ 13 ] and less than the 3.4% uncertainty in variation between vials reported by Ferreira et al [ 15 ]. Other studies have shown that different dose calibrators can have different sensitivity to the variation in vial thickness which can cause a 4% difference in chamber response [ 13 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The dose calibrator chamber has a diameter of 6.1 cm and a depth of 25.4 cm, a plastic insert is used to protect the chamber from damage and contamination. The Sirtex shipping vial has a wall thickness of 2.0 mm and bottom thickness of 2.4 mm [ 13 ]. Water for injection was added to the vials in increments of 0.25 g up to 1 g total added and then in 1 g increments up to the final weight of 5 g with the vial being weighed and the radioactivity assayed in the dose calibrator at each weight.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Des résultats similaires ont été récem-ment obtenus au NPL (institut national de métrologie du Royaume-Uni) dans le cadre du projet MetroMRT [33]. Ce problème a conduit à l'adoption d'une incertitude relative conservative de 5 % sur la détermination du coefficient d'étalonnage de la chambre obtenu avec le flacon de microsphères fourni par Sirtex [34]. Cette incertitude est plus élevée que celle donnée pour les radionucléides émetteurs de photons γ. Cependant l'incertitude associée à l'étalonnage des microsphères obtenu au LNE-LNHB a permis de réduire d'un facteur 2 celle donnée par la société Sirtex.…”
Section: Resultsunclassified
“…Les premiers résultats ont confirmé une autre difficulté, celle de la sous-estimation des valeurs calculées des coefficients d'étalonnage comparées à celles mesurées (≈ 30 %) dans le cas des émetteurs β − purs 90 Y, 32 P et 89 Sr [34].…”
Section: Resultsunclassified
“…The response of such instruments i.e., the measured ionization current (which is related to the total energy deposited in the IC gas volume), depends on the chamber design (wall thickness, nature and pressure of the filling gas), the nature and dimensions of the source (type of vial or ampoule, filling height of radioactive sample, etc. ), and the shielding around (Ceccatelli et al, 2007;Kryeziu et al, 2007;Thiam et al, 2016). Generally, ICs are well adapted for solutions of gamma-emitting radionuclides (Amiot et al, 2012;Zimmerman and Judge, 2007) but can also be used for high-energy beta-emitting radionuclides such as 90 Y, although such measurements are more challenging (Pearce et al, 2007;Fenwick et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%