No abstract

The calculation of the ionization chamber response is one of key factors to develop a primary standard of air kerma. Using Monte Carlo code PENELOPE, we simulated the cavity response of the plane parallel ionization chamber to the monoenergetic 60Co beam incident normally on a flat surface of the chamber. Two simulation techniques, namely, the uniform interaction technique and the reentrance technique, were introduced. The effect of the input parameters such as C1 (average angular deflection in a single step between hard elastic events), C2 (maximum average fractional energy loss in a step), S(max) (maximum step length) and W(cc) (the lower energy of secondary electrons created as a result of a hard collision) on the simulated cavity dose was evaluated. We found that the simulated cavity response of the graphite and solid air chambers obtained by PENELOPE to the monoenergetic 60Co beam could be consistent with the value expected from the cross-sections of PENELOPE to within 0.2% (one standard deviation) when W(cc) and S(max) were selected carefully.

The APMP/TCRI Dosimetry Working Group performed the APMP.RI(I)-K3 key comparison of measurement of air kerma for medium-energy x-rays (100 kV to 250 kV) between 2000 and 2003. In total, 11 institutes took part in the comparison, among which 8 were APMP member laboratories. Two commercial cavity ionization chambers were used as transfer instruments and circulated among the participants. All the participants established the 100 kV, 135 kV, 180 kV and 250 kV x-ray beam qualities equivalent to those of the BIPM. T he results showed that the maximum difference between the participants and the BIPM in the medium-energy x-ray range, evaluated using the comparison data of the linking laboratories ARPANSA and PTB, is less than 1.4 %. The degrees of equivalence between the participants are presented and this comparison confirms the calibration capabilities of the participating laboratories.

The dosimetry parameters of the IRH10 (192)Ir high dose rate brachytherapy source were obtained from the dose calculation formalism recommended in the AAPM Task Group No. 43 report using the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE. The absorbed doses to water and air originating from the photons of the IRH10 (192)Ir brachytherapy source were calculated by the collision kerma approximation. The dose rate constant was evaluated to be (1.110 +/- 0.011) cGy/h U(-1). The dose rate per unit air kerma strength around the (192)Ir IRH10 brachytherapy source and the anisotropy function were given in tables and figures.

The APMP.RI(I)-K1 key comparison of the measurement standards of air kerma for 60Co gamma-rays was undertaken by the APMP/TCRI Dosimetry Working Group between 2004 and 2006, coordinated by the Korean Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS). In total, 10 institutes took part in the comparison, among which 7 were APMP member laboratories. Three Farmer-type commercial cavity chambers were used as transfer chambers and circulated among the participants. All the participants carried out their measurements according to the guidelines for the comparison established by the KRISS with the cooperation of the ARPANSA. For each transfer chamber, an NMI calibration coefficient was obtained and a ratio derived by dividing by the average result from the linking laboratories, ARPANSA and NMIJ. The APMP comparison reference value for each chamber was calculated as the mean of the NMI-determined calibration coefficients divided by the average result from the linking laboratories. The results showed that the maximum difference between the APMP linked ratio of a participating NMI and the APMP reference value was 1.76%.The measured ratios of the calibration coefficient RNMI, BIPM between the participating NMI and the BIPM via the link laboratories for the transfer chambers were obtained. The maximum expanded uncertainty of RNMI, BIPM for any participating laboratory was 2.0%.The degree of equivalence of each participating laboratory with respect to the key comparison reference value was also evaluated. The expanded uncertainty of the difference between the results ranged from 0.5% to 1.2%. The pair-wise degree of equivalence between each pair of laboratories was also obtained and the largest difference of the expanded uncertainty of the difference for any pair-wise degree of equivalence was within the expanded uncertainty of the measurement for the pair of laboratories.Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCRI, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).