• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.145-151
• /
• 2013

Purpose: In this study, we analyzed how the dose change by field size effects on atomic number of shielding materials while using 6 MeV election beam. Materials and Methods: The parallel plate chamber is mounted in $25{\times}25cm^2$ the phantom such that the entrance window of the detector is flush with the phantom surface. phantom was covered laterally with aluminum, copper and lead which thickness have 5% of allowable transmission and then the doses were measured in field size $6{\times}6$, $10{\times}10$ and $20{\times}20cm^2$ respectively. 100 cGy was irradiated using 6 MeV electron beam and SSD (Source Surface Distance) was 100 cm with $10{\times}10cm^2$ field size. To calculate the photon flux, electron flux and Energy deposition produced after pass materals respectively, MCNPX code was used. Results: The results according to the various shielding materials which have 5% of allowable transmission are as in the following. Thickness change rate with field size of $6{\times}6cm^2$ and $20{\times}20cm^2$ that compared to the field size of $10{\times}10cm^2$ found to be +0.06% and -0.06% with aluminum, +0.13% and -0.1% with copper, -1.53% and +1.92% with lead respectively. Compare to the field size $10{\times}10cm^2$, energy deposition for $6{\times}6cm^2$ and $20{\times}20cm^2$ had -4.3% and +4.85% respectively without shielding material. With aluminum it had -0.87% and +6.93% respectively and with lead it had -4.16% and +5.57% respectively. When it comes to photon flux with $6{\times}6cm^2$ and $20{\times}20cm^2$ of field sizes the chance -8.95% and +15.92% without shielding material respectively, with aluminum the number -15.56% and +16.06% respectively and with copper the chance -12.27% and +15.53% respectively, with lead the number +12.36% and -19.81% respectively. In case of electron flux in the same condition, the number -3.92% and +4.55% respectively without shielding material respectively, with aluminum the number +0.59% and +6.87% respectively, with copper the number -1.59% and +3.86% respectively, with lead the chance -5.15% and +4.00% respectively. Conclusion: In this study, we found that the required thickness of the shielding materials got thinner with low atomic number substance as the irradiation field is increasing. On the other hand, with high atomic number substance the required thickness had increased. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation have an influence on low atomic number materials and high atomic number materials are effected by scattered electrons.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose is to clarify the effect of additional scattering ratio on the edge of the block according to the increasing block thickness with low melting point lead alloy and pure lead in electron beam therapy. Methods and materials: $10{\times}10cm^2$ Shielding blocks made of low melting point lead alloy and pure lead were fabricated to shield mold frame half of applicator. Block thickness was 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 (mm) for each material. The common irradiation conditions were set at 6 MeV energy, 300 MU / Min dose rate, gantry angle of $0^{\circ}$, and dose of 100 MU. The relative scattering ratio with increasing block thickness was measured with a parallel plate type ion chamber(Exradin P11) and phantom(RW3) by varying the position of the shielding block(cone and on the phantom), the position of the measuring point(surface ans depth of $D_{max}$), and the block material(lead alloy and pure lead). Results : When (depth of measurement / block position / block material) was (surface / applicator / pure lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 15.33 nC(+0.33 %), 15.28 nC(0 %), 15.08 nC(-1.31 %), 15.05 nC(-1.51 %), 15.07 nC(-1.37 %) as the block thickness increased in order of 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 (mm) respectively. When it was (surface / applicator / alloy lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 15.19 nC(-0.59 %), 15.25 nC(-0.20 %), 15.15 nC(-0.85 %), 14.96 nC(-2.09 %), 15.15 nC(-0.85 %) respectively. When it was (surface / phantom / pure lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 15.62 nC(+2.23 %), 15.59 nC(+2.03 %), 15.53 nC(+1.67 %), 15.48 nC(+1.31 %), 15.34 nC(+0.39 %) respectively. When it was (surface / phantom / alloy lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 15.56 nC(+1.83 %), 15.55 nC(+1.77 %), 15.51 nC(+1.51 %), 15.42 nC(+0.92 %), 15.39 nC(+0.72 %) respectively. When it was (depth of $D_{max}$ / applicator / pure lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 16.70 nC(-10.87 %), 16.84 nC(-10.12 %), 16.72 nC(-10.78 %), 16.88 nC(-9.93 %), 16.90 nC(-9.82 %) respectively. When it was (depth of $D_{max}$ / applicator / alloy lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 16.83 nC(-10.19 %), 17.12 nC(-8.64 %), 16.89 nC(-9.87 %), 16.77 nC(-10.51 %), 16.52 nC(-11.85 %) respectively. When it was (depth of $D_{max}$ / phantom / pure lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 17.41 nC(-7.10 %), 17.45 nC(-6.88 %), 17.34 nC(-7.47 %), 17.42 nC(-7.04 %), 17.25 nC(-7.95 %) respectively. When it was (depth of $D_{max}$ / phantom / alloy lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 17.45 nC(-6.88 %), 17.44 nC(-6.94 %), 17.47 nC(-6.78 %), 17.43 nC(-6.99 %), 17.35 nC(-7.42 %) respectively. Conclusions: When performing electron therapy using a shielding block, the block position should be inserted applicator rather than the patient's body surface. The block thickness should be made to the minimum appropriate shielding thickness of each corresponding using energy. Also it is useful that the treatment should be performed considering the influence of scattering dose varying with distance from the edge of block.