• 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.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.

• KSBB Journal
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.253-259
• /
• 2005

This study was accomplished using attached $A^2/O$ process that contains nonsurface-modified and surface-modified polyethylene media inside the Anaerobic/Anoxic, Oxic tank, respectively. We could make the hydrophobic polyethylene media have hydrophilic characteristics by radiating ion beam on the surface of the media. The objectives of this study is to investigate the removal efficiencies of the organics and nitrogen when the step feed ratio of raw wastewater into anaerobic and anoxic tank is changed. In this case, we assumed that the denitrification rate can be improved because the nitrifiers in anoxic tank can perform denitrification using RBDCOD instead of artificial carbon sources (for example, methanol, etc.). The wastewater injection rate into anaerobic/anoxic tank was set up by the ratio of 10 : 0, 9 : 1, 8 : 2, 6 : 4, and the results of BOD removal efficiency showed similar trends with $93.3\%,\;92.6\%,\;92.4\%\;and\;91.6\%$, respectively. But the BOD removal efficiency (utilization of the organics) in the anoxic tank was in the order of 9 : 1 $(84.8\%)$, 10 : 0 $(77.0\%)$, 8 : 2 $(75.3\%)$, and 6 : 4 $(61.1\%)$. The T-N removal efficiency was most high when the ratio is 9 : 1 $(67.4\%)$, and other conditions, 10 : 0, 8 : 2, 6 : 4, showed $61.3(\%),\;60.7\%,\;55.5\%$, respectively; the ratio 6 : 4 was found to be lowest T-N removal efficiency, lower than the ratio 9 : 1 by $12\%$. Though the nitrification rate of the ratio 10 : 0, 9 : 1, and 8 : 2 showed similar levels, the ratio 6 : 4 showed considerable inhibition of nitrification, ammonia was the great portion of the effluent T-N. The advantages of this process is that this process is cost-saving, and non-toxic methods than injecting the artificial carbon source.