• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.205-211
• /
• 2015

We evaluated the effectiveness of TL (Time Limit) method by comparing with NTL (Non-time limit) method when it is used for examinations for abdomen Anterior Posterior (AP) in this paper. The evaluation was conducted based on the comparison of dose, and of signal to noise ratio (SNR) and contrast to ratio (CNR) on both methods. The experiments were conducted with XGEO GC 80 (Samsung, Korea), Unfors ThinX RAD (Unfors, Sweden) and Rando Phantom (Alderson research laboratories, USA) and shielding material with the size of $5.5{\times}9{\times}0.1cm^3$. It was set to activate only two upper ionization chambers in automatic exposure control(AEC) mode and the tube-voltage was set to 80kVp. When the exposure time was limited, it is limited to 51 msec. The images both by NTL AEC method and TL AEC method were acquired when with and without attachment of shielding material on the upper ionization chambers. The images were evaluated by SNR and CNR which are the image evaluation methods using 'Image J'. The NTL AEC method showed increases in dose as much as 130.7% at maximum and 80% at minimum than other methods. The TL AEC method showed decreases in mAs and exposure dose than the NTL AEC method as much as 43.8% and 44.4% respectively. There were no significant differences in SNR or CNR for the experiments (($p{\geq}0.05$). Therefore, it is suggested that the TLAEC mode is more effective when examining patients who have high BMI index or a patient with a metallic substance in the body after surgery.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.1-5
• /
• 2015

The C-band compact linear accelerator (linac) is being developed at Dongnam Institute of radiological & Medical Sciences (DIRAMS) for medical and industrial applications. This paper was focused on the output measurement of the electron beam generated from the prototype electron linac. The dose rate was measured in unit of cGy/min per unit pulse frequency according to the IAEA TRS-398 protocol. Exradin-A10 Markus type plane parallel chamber used for the measurement was calibrated in terms of dose to water at the reference depth in water. The beam quality index ($R_{50}$) was determined by the radiochromic film with a solid water phantom approximately due to low energy electrons. As a result, the determined electron beam output was $17.0cGy/(min{\cdot}Hz$. The results were used to monitor the accelerator performance during the development procedure.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.53-60
• /
• 2010

Purpose: We try to calculate EDW-factor easily with the formula applies essential data of EDW-factor and evaluate the validity through a measurement. Materials and Methods: We used the given value of GSTT (Golden Segmented Treatment Table) for the calculation of the EDW-factor. As to the experimental device, 0.6 cc farmer-type ion-chamber, an electrometer and water- phantom were used. A measurement was made at the maximum dose depth of the photon beam energy 6 MV and 15 MV under the condition that SSD (Source to Surface Distance) was 100 cm. The angle of the EDW (Enhanced Dynamic Wedge) which we use in an experiment was 60 degree, 30 degree, 20 degree in the Y1-OUT direction. We used Eclipse planning system (Varian, USA) as RTP system and the EDW-factor was calculated about all fields and EDW direction. In order to show the EDW-factor feature, a measurement was made at the selected field that verify the influence of the dependability about X, Y jaw and off-axis field. Results: When we change the Y1 field, it influence on the EDW-Factor and measured value. But the error between measured values and calculated values was less than 1%. The experimental result indicated the tendency that the error of the result of calculation and measured value becomes smaller as the EDW angle become smaller whether the calculation point (measurement point) and iso-center are same or not. The influence of the field size and energy did not show up. We simulated with the same condition using the RTP system. And we found that it makes no difference between the MU which is calculated manually by applying the EDW-Factor obtained from the commercial program and the value which is calculated by using RTP system. Conclusion: We excluded fitting value from well-known EDW-Factor formula and calculated EDW-factor with the formula applies essential data of EDW-factor only. As a result, there are no significant difference between the measured value and calculated value and it showed errors less than 1%. Also, we implemented the commercial program to calculate EDW-Factor conveniently without measure a factor on each field.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.111-116
• /
• 2010

Ionizing radiation is most widely used for X-Ray examination among all artificial radiation exposure, it takes up the largest proportion. Even in Korea, the medical exposure by diagnostic X-Ray examination takes up 17.4% of all radiation exposure. It takes up 92% even in artificial radiation exposure. There were 111,567 cases X-Ray radiography for skull diagnosis in 2007, which is 3% annual increase since 2004. Thus, It is need to establish the diagnostic reference level and the medical facilities as a diagnostic reference level to optimize radiation protection of the patients and to reduce the doses of X-ray. In this paper, we survey patient dose on skull radiography - collected from 114 medical facilities nationwide by using human phantom and glass dosimeter. When the patient dose for the skull radiography was measured and evaluated to establish the diagnostic reference level, 2.23 mGy was established for posterior-anterior imaging and 1.87 mGy for lateral imaging was established. The posterior-anterior skull radiography entrance surface dose of 2.23 is less than the guidance level of 5 mGy from the global organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and 1.87 mGy for the lateral skull imaging is less than the guidance level of 3 mGy, which is guided by the global organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).