2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-583x(00)00237-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plastic scintillator investigations for relative dosimetry in proton-therapy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

12
68
3

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
12
68
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This is in agreement with the findings of Safai [19], Archambault et al [16], and Torrisi [17], but when taken by itself, the Čerenkov signal showed not only very good signal to noise ratio (between 40 and 60; increasing SNR with LET), but showed a superior peak-to-surface ratio as compared to the fullsignal detector or the Exradin W1 in the proton beam. Though this is not exactly in agreement with the work done by Jang et al [20], the study was not carried out with identical instruments or with the same thoroughness as the Jang study: RBP and SOBP were measured using coarse step sizes and were not repeated, and dose response was not studied.…”
Section: čErenkov Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is in agreement with the findings of Safai [19], Archambault et al [16], and Torrisi [17], but when taken by itself, the Čerenkov signal showed not only very good signal to noise ratio (between 40 and 60; increasing SNR with LET), but showed a superior peak-to-surface ratio as compared to the fullsignal detector or the Exradin W1 in the proton beam. Though this is not exactly in agreement with the work done by Jang et al [20], the study was not carried out with identical instruments or with the same thoroughness as the Jang study: RBP and SOBP were measured using coarse step sizes and were not repeated, and dose response was not studied.…”
Section: čErenkov Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Possible causes for over-response in these detectors could be due to geometry, damage to the detectors or other effects such as columnar recombination [7]. The quenching exhibited by the scintillators was not unexpected due to previous research done by Archambault et al [16], Torrisi [17], and others. Finally, a measure of uncertainty at the Bragg peak could also be attributed to the relatively large diameter of the detector (0.5 mm)-this is the large-diameter end for resolving the peak of a lower energy proton beam such as the 74 MeV beam used.…”
Section: Raw and Spread-out Bragg Peaksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quenching phenomenon, which is the degradation of the luminescence efficiency in luminescence materials for high-LET particles, was reported by a number of researchers. (11)(12)(13) This phenomenon was also observed in our small-size dosimeter, and the level of quenching was varied among the phosphors. (14,15) The quenching effect is considered to be due to the temporal and local deficiencies of luminescence origins, such as trap centers in OSL materials.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…where k B is the Birks' constant, which depends on the scintillating material (0.088 mm keV À1 for polyvinyltoluene-based scintillators, Torrisi, 2000). The integration of equation (18) gives:…”
Section: Non-linearity Of the Scintillator/convertermentioning
confidence: 99%