Change of dmax Values of Elements with Z≤54 for Electron Beams

Abstract

In dealing with electron interactions with matter, it is important to reveal the relationship between parameters such as stopping power, range and absorbed dose. It is known that the change of mean excitation energy values, which is a quantity affecting stopping power and range calculations, according to the atomic number of the elements, confirms the shell model of the elements. In this study, it was revealed that the d_max value, which is closely related to dose values, is also compatible with the shell model of the elements and exhibits similar behavior with the mean excitation energy. For this purpose, EGSnrc Monte Carlo code was used to determine the d_max values. Calculations were carried out for three electron energies (4, 9 and 15 MeV) in medically important energy ranges. As a result, the shell structure of the elements should be taken into account in the calculation of electron interaction parameters.

Keywords

• Dose
• EGSnrc
• Electron beams
• Maximum dose depth

Project Number

no

References

1. Andreo P. 1991. Monte Carlo techniques in medical radiation Andreo P. 1991. Monte Carlo techniques in medical radiation physics. Physics Med Biol 36(7): 861.
2. Balashov V, Springer B, Cropper W, Eisberg R, Resnick R, Evans R. 1984. International commission on radiation units and measurements (icru) stopping powers for electrons and positrons. ICRU Report 37 (ICRU Bethesda MD USA 1984), New York, USA, pp: 143.
3. Björk P, Knöös T, Nilsson P. 2002. Influence of initial electron beam characteristics on Monte Carlo calculated absorbed dose distributions for linear accelerator electron beams. Physics Med Biol, 47(22): 4019.
4. Burlin T, Sidwell J, Wheatley B. 1973. Applications of Monte Carlo methods in medical radiology. British J Radiol, 46(545): 398-399.
5. Cygler J, Li XA, Ding GX, Lawrence E. 1997. Practical approach to electron beam dosimetry at extended SSD. Physics Med Biol 42(8): 1505.
6. Eldib AA, ElGohary MI, Fan J, Jin L, Li J, Ma CMC, Elsherbini NA. 2010. Dosimetric characteristics of an electron multileaf collimator for modulated electron radiation therapy. J Applied Clin Med Physics, 11(2): 5-22.
7. Grusell E. 2015. On the definition of absorbed dose. Radiat Physics Chem, 107: 131-135.
8. Günhan B, Karaçam S, Koca A, Demir B, Emre D, Akin N. 2005. Depth dose characteristics of electron beams at extended SSD. Physica Med, 21(2): 75-80.

9. Katagiri M, Hikoji M, Kitaichi M, Sawamura S, Aoki Y. 2000. Effective doses and organ doses per unit fluence calculated for monoenergetic 0.1 MeV to 100 MeV electrons by the MIRD-5 phantom. Radiation Protect Dosimetry, 90(4): 393-401.
10. Khan FM, Gibbons JP. 2014. Khan's the physics of radiation therapy: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, London, UK, pp: 185.
11. Kim MT, Lee HK, Heo YC, Cho JH. 2014. A study on effective source-Skin distance using phantom in electron beam therapy. J Magnet, 19(1): 15-19.
12. Nelson W, Hirayama H, Rogers D. 1985. The EGS4 code system Report SLAC-265. Standford: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, California, USA, pp: 124.
13. Protection R. 2007. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2.4) 2.
14. Rogers D. 2006. Fifty years of Monte Carlo simulations for medical physics. Physics Med Biol 51(13): 287.
15. Strydom W, Parker W, Olivares M. 2005. Electron beams: physical and clinical aspects. Podgorsak EB (edn) Radiation oncology physics: a handbook for teachers and students. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria, pp: 273-299.
16. Tufan MÇ, Yüksel Z. 2019. Mean excitation energy calculations for the atoms Z≤ 54. Indian J Physics 93(3): 301-305.
17. Yüksel Z, Tufan MÇ. 2018. Estimating the effect of electron beam interactions with biological tissues. Canadian J Physics, 96(12): 1338-1348.
18. Yüksel Z, Tufan MÇ. 2021. Relationship between dose and stopping power values for electrons in skin and muscle tissues. Radiat Environ Biophysics, 60:135-140.
19. Yüksel Z, Tufan MÇ. 2021. Stopping power dependence of dmax values for biological targets. J Anatolian Physics Astron, 1(2): 35-39.