Investigations of degradation and encapsulation of plastic scintillator

Kouzes, Richard T.; Cho, Herman M.; Cowles, Christian; Dib, Gerges; Keller, Paul E.; Smart, John E.; Smith, Philip J.; Tucker, Brian J.; Feng, Patrick L.; Myllenbeck, Nicholas; Payne, Stephen A.

doi:10.1016/j.nima.2019.01.018

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We tested our system about a year with same Raspberry Pi and camera module,there is no electronic malfunctions.If any component failed, we could replace them easily, the price is less than 100 US dollars. On the other hand, the plastic scintillator would be damaged by aging 33 and repeated radiation exposure. 34 It resulted the wavelength shifting and the intensity degradation of the scintillating light.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a digital star‐shot analysis system for comparing radiation and imaging isocenters of proton treatment machine

Han,

2024

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo directly compare the radiation and imaging isocenters of a proton treatment machine, we developed and evaluated a real‐time radiation isocenter verification system.MethodsThe system consists of a plastic scintillator (PI‐200, Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), an acrylic phantom, a steel ball on the detachable plate, Raspberry Pi 4 (Raspberry Pi Foundation, London, UK) with camera module, and analysis software implemented through a Python‐based graphical user interface (GUI). After kV imaging alignment of the steel ball, the imaging isocenter defined as the position of the steel ball was extracted from the optical image. The proton star‐shot was obtained by optical camera because the scintillator converted proton beam into visible light. Then the software computed both the minimum circle radius and the radiation isocenter position from the star‐shot. And the deviation between the imaging isocenter and radiation isocenter was calculated. We compared our results with measurements obtained by Gafchromic EBT3 film (Ashland, NJ, USA).ResultsThe minimum circle radii were averaged 0.29 and 0.41 mm while the position deviations from the radiation isocenter to the laser marker were averaged 0.99 and 1.07 mm, for our system and EBT3 film, respectively. Furthermore, the average position difference between the radiation isocenter and imaging isocenter was 0.27 mm for our system. Our system reduced analysis time by 10 min.ConclusionsOur system provided automated star‐shot analysis with sufficient accuracy, and it is cost‐effective alternative to conventional film‐based method for radiation isocenter verification.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%