We elucidate the termination surface of cleaved single crystals of the BaFe 2−x Co x As 2 and Fe y Se 1−x Te x families of the high-temperature iron-based superconductors. By combining scanning tunneling microscopic data with low-energy electron diffraction we prove that the termination layer of the BaFe 2 As 2 systems is a remnant of the Ba layer, which exhibits a complex diversity of ordered and disordered structures. The observed surface topographies and their accompanying superstructure reflections in electron diffraction depend on the cleavage temperature. In stark contrast, Fe y Se 1−x Te x possesses only a single termination structure-that of the tetragonally ordered Se 1−x Te x layer.
We have studied the electronic structure of EuFe2As2−xPx using high resolution angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. Upon substituting As with the isovalent P, which leads to a chemical pressure and to superconductivity, we observe a non-rigid-band like change of the electronic structure along the center of the Brillouin zone (BZ): an orbital and kz dependent increase or decrease in the size of the hole pockets near the Γ − Z line. On the other hand, the diameter of the Fermi surface cylinders at the BZ corner forming electron pockets, hardly changes. This is in stark contrast to p and n-type doped iron pnictides where, on the basis of ARPES experiments, a more rigid-band like behavior has been proposed. These findings indicate that there are different ways in which the nesting conditions can be reduced causing the destabilization of the antiferromagnetic order and the appearance of the superconducting dome.
With the exception of the half-value layer, and mechanical properties, there were significant differences between the dosimetric and geometric properties of the three systems. This underscores the need for careful commissioning of each individual system for use in radiobiological experiments.
Purpose
Despite their availability and simplicity of use, Electronic Portal Imaging Devices (EPIDs) have not yet replaced detector arrays for patient specific QA in 3D. The purpose of this study is to perform a large scale dosimetric evaluation of transit and non‐transit EPID dosimetry against absolute dose measurements in 3D.
Methods
After evaluating basic dosimetric characteristics of the EPID and two detector arrays (Octavius 1500 and Octavius 1000SRS), 3D dose distributions for 68 VMAT arcs, and 10 IMRT plans were reconstructed within the same phantom geometry using transit EPID dosimetry, non‐transit EPID dosimetry, and the Octavius 4D system. The reconstructed 3D dose distributions were directly compared by γ‐analysis (2L2 = 2% local/2 mm and 3G2 = 3% global/2 mm, 50% isodose) and by the percentage difference in median dose to the high dose volume (%∆HDVD50).
Results
Regarding dose rate dependency, dose linearity, and field size dependence, the agreement between EPID dosimetry and the two detector arrays was found to be within 1.0%. In the 2L2 γ‐comparison with Octavius 4D dose distributions, the average γ‐pass rate value was 92.2 ± 5.2%(1SD) and 94.1 ± 4.3%(1SD) for transit and non‐transit EPID dosimetry, respectively. 3G2 γ‐pass rate values were higher than 95% in 150/156 cases. %∆HDVD50 values were within 2% in 134/156 cases and within 3% in 155/156 cases. With regard to the clinical classification of alerts, 97.5% of the treatments were equally classified by EPID dosimetry and Octavius 4D.
Conclusion
Transit and non‐transit EPID dosimetry are equivalent in dosimetric terms to conventional detector arrays for patient specific QA. Non‐transit 3D EPID dosimetry can be readily used for pre‐treatment patient specific QA of IMRT and VMAT, eliminating the need of phantom positioning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.