• New Physics: Sae Mulli
• /
• v.68 no.12
• /
• pp.1281-1287
• /
• 2018

In this study, $Al_xGa_{1-x}N$ films were grown on (0001) sapphire substrates by using metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD). The crystallinity of the grown films was examined with X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns. The surfaces and the chemical properties of the $Al_xGa_{1-x}N$ films were investigated using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), respectively. The optical properties of the $Al_xGa_{1-x}N$ film were studied in a wide photon energy range between 2.0 ~ 8.7 eV by using spectroscopic ellipsometry (SE) at room temperature. The data obtained by using SE were analyzed to find the critical points of the pseudodielectric function spectra, $<{\varepsilon}(E)>=<{\varepsilon}_1(E)>+i<{\varepsilon}_2(E)>$. In addition, the second derivative spectra, $d^2<{\varepsilon}(E)>/dE^2$, of the pseudodielectric function for the $Al_xGa_{1-x}N$ films were numerically calculated to determine the critical points (CPs), such as the $E_0$, $E_1$, and $E_2$ structure. For the four samples (x = 0.18, 0.21, 0.25, 0.29) between a composition of x = 0.18 and x = 0.29, changes in the critical points (blue-shifts) with increasing Al composition at 300 K for the $Al_xGa_{1-x}N$ film were observed via ellipsometric measurements for the first time.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.109-116
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of Surface-Guided Patient Setup by comparing the patient positioning accuracy when image-guided radiation therapy was used for Markerless patients(unmarked on the skin) using Surface-Guided Patient Setup and Marker patients(marked on the skin) using Laser-Based Patient Setup. Materials And Methods: The position error during IGRT was compared between a Markerless patient initially set up with SGPS using an optical surface scanning system using three cameras and a Marker patient initially set up with LBPS that aligns the laser with the marker drawn on the patient's skin. Both SGPS and LBPS were performed on 20 prostate cancer patients and 10 Stereotactic Radiation Surgery patients, respectively, and SGPS was performed on an additional 60 breast cancer patients. All were performed IGRT using CBCT or OBI. Position error of 6 degrees of freedom was obtained using Auto-Matching System, and comparison and analysis were performed using Offline-Review in the treatment planning system. Result: The difference between the root mean square (RMS) of SGPS and LBPS in prostate cancer patients was Vrt -0.02cm, Log -0.02cm, Lat 0.01cm, Pit -0.01°, Rol -0.01°, Rtn -0.01°, SRS patients was Vrt 0.02cm, Log -0.05cm, Lat 0.00cm, Pit -0.30°, Rol -0.15°, Rtn -0.33°. there was no significant difference between the two regions. According to the IGRT standard of breast cancer patients, RMS was Vrt 0.26, Log 0.21, Lat 0.15, Pit 0.81, Rol 0.49, Rtn 0.59. Conclusion:. As a result of this study, the position error value of SGPS compared to LBPS did not show a significant difference between prostate cancer patients and SRS patients. In the case of additionally performed SGPS breast cancer patients, the position error value was not large based on IGRT. Therefore, it is considered that it will be useful to replace LBPS with SGPS, which has the great advantage of not requiring patient skin marking..

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.44-49
• /
• 2017

Purpose Radiation exposure management has been strictly regulated for the radiation workers, but there are only a few studies on potential risk of radiation exposure to non-radiation workers, especially nurses in a general ward. The present study aimed to estimate the exact total exposure of the nurse in a general ward by close contact with the patient undergoing nuclear medicine examinations. Materials and Methods Radiation exposure rate was determined by using thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and optical simulated luminescence (OSL) in 14 nurses in a general ward from October 2015 to June 2016. External radiation rate was measured immediately after injection and examination at skin surface, and 50 cm and 1 m distance from 50 patients (PET/CT 20 pts; Bone scan 20 pts; Myocardial SPECT 10 pts). After measurement, effective half-life, and total radiation exposure expected in nurses were calculated. Then, expected total exposure was compared with total exposures actually measured in nurses by TLD and OSL. Results Mean and maximum amount of radiation exposure of 14 nurses in a general ward were 0.01 and 0.02 mSv, respectively in each measuring period. External radiation rate after injection at skin surface, 0.5 m and 1 m distance from patients was as following; $376.0{\pm}25.2$, $88.1{\pm}8.2$ and $29.0{\pm}5.8{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in PET/CT; $206.7{\pm}56.6$, $23.1{\pm}4.4$ and $10.1{\pm}1.4{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in bone scan; $22.5{\pm}2.6$, $2.4{\pm}0.7$ and $0.9{\pm}0.2{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in myocardial SPECT. After examination, external radiation rate at skin surface, 0.5 m and 1 m distance from patients was decreased as following; $165.3{\pm}22.1$, $38.7{\pm}5.9$ and $12.4{\pm}2.5{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in PET/CT; $32.1{\pm}8.7$, $6.2{\pm}1.1$, $2.8{\pm}0.6$, respectively in bone scan; $14.0{\pm}1.2$, $2.1{\pm}0.3$, $0.8{\pm}0.2{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in myocardial SPECT. Based upon the results, an effective half-life was calculated, and at 30 minutes after examination the time to reach normal dose limit in 'Nuclear Safety Act' was calculated conservatively without considering a half-life. In oder of distance (at skin surface, 0.5 m and 1 m distance from patients), it was 7.9, 34.1 and 106.8 hr, respectively in PET/CT; 40.4, 199.5 and 451.1 hr, respectively in bone scan, 62.5, 519.3 and 1313.6 hr, respectively in myocardial SPECT. Conclusion Radiation exposure rate may differ slightly depending on the work process and the environment in a general ward. Exposure rate was measured at step in the general examination procedure and it made our results more reliable. Our results clearly showed that total amount of radiation exposure caused by residual radioactive isotope in the patient body was neglectable, even comparing with the natural radiation exposure. In conclusion, nurses in a general ward were much less exposed than the normal dose limit, and the effects of exposure by contacting patients undergoing nuclear medicine examination was ignorable.