Absorption and Scatter Properties of Tungsten Structured Composite Material

G. Boka1, E. Reine1, A. Svarca1, M. Kuzminskis1, S. Bikova1, Y. Bauman1,2, and Y. Dekhtyar3

1

Riga East University Hospital, Clinic of Therapeutic Radiology and Medical Physics, Riga, Latvia
2
Latvian Inventors Association, Riga, Latvia
3
Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia

Abstract- Work was studied in the composite material

(tungsten and ceresin composite material) absorption and
scattering characteristics as well as comparison with until now
used Bi-Sn-Pb compound. the hypothesis is that this type of
composite material can be used as a substitute for metal alloy
in radiation therapy. The aim is to determine the absorption
and scatter of the composite, as well as to find out whether this
kind of material can be applied to radiation therapy.
Keywords Composite, Tungsten, Radiation shielding,
electron beam
I.

INTRODUCTION

Today, radiation therapy as a treatment method occupies an

increasingly important role. Consequently, it is also
growing demand for higher precision treatment goal capable of sufficiently large doses of radiation target
volume and at the same time as little damaging healthy
tissue structures. Electrons are the particles that are
generally used in routine clinics [1]. In more complex cases
for electron treatments, when it is necessary to protect the
tumor intact organs, but they are located too close to the
target, amount of exposure to healthy tissue is inevitable. In
this cases additionally use metal masks that are made of
alloy Bi-Pb-Sn material and has a high absorption,
relatively low dispersion. But the manufacturing process of
this shielding material is long and complex, as well as lead,
of course, is a toxic material.

II. PURPOSE / OBJECTIVE

To measure and compare Bi-Pb-Sn alloy transmission

factors with new tungsten-ceresin structured composite
material for radiation therapy purposes for complicated
tumor locations and surrounded tissues protection from
radiation.
III.

characteristics as well as comparison with until now used

Bi-Sn-Pb compound. The hypothesis is that this type of
composite material can be used as a substitute for metal
alloy in radiation therapy. The aim is to determine the
absorption and scatter of the composite, as well as to find
out whether this kind of material can be applied to radiation
therapy. Thickness of specimen is 1 cm.
B. Measurement of absorbtion
Transmission factors measurements were made for
electron radiation supplied from a linear accelerator Clinac
2100C/D (Varian Medical Systems, USA). The metallic
and composite specimens were exposed with 4, 6, 9, 12, 16,
20MeV electron energies, dose rate 300 MU/min, and dose
2Gy to a depth of each energy dose maximum. In addition
the composite was exposed with the dose rates 100, 300,
600MU/min.
An incident radiation beam was perpendicular to the surface
of a solid water phantom, where the specimens were located
. The Dose measurements were performed at the region of
high doses effective point of measurement (Table 1) and
source-axis distance (SAD) 100cm. Radiation detector
Scanditronix Wellhfer plane parallel ion-chamber [2] type
PPC05 with its active volume 0.05 cm3 [3] was used.
Measurements were performed five times for each energy,
dose rate, and the specimen.
Table 1 Detector depth at the water equivalent phantom
Electron energy, MeV

Effective point of
measurement, mm

4
6
9
12
16
20

5
11
19
26
26
24

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Test preparation.
Work was studied in the composite material (tungsten
and ceresin composite material) absorption and scattering

Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

. Jobbgy (ed.), First European Biomedical Engineering Conference for Young Investigators,
IFMBE Proceedings 50, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-573-0_15

60

Absorption and Scatter Properties of Tungsten Structured Composite Material

C. Measurement of scattering.
The planar dose distributions perpendicular to the central
axis and along axis dose were measured by using a
Gafchromic EBT2 films in solid water phantom.

61

composite materials does not significant in contrast to the

16MeV
(1,4%)
and
20MeV
(11%).
Analyzing the adjoin scattering edges effects we got that in
2 mm depth the dose distribution on the surface near block
edges for metal alloy is more than with composite block
generated. Therefore the difference in dose between the
metal and composite block material could be calculated as:
Dose of metal block
Dose of composite block
generated field
generated field
Dose of metal block
generated field

Fig. 1 Electron beam calibration film scanner output.

During measurements calibration films 525,4 cm2 were
placed at an SAD of 100 cm and at considering depth using
plates (30 30 cm2, set of different thicknesses) of Solid
Water phantom. Film was irradiated with 4 4 cm2 field.
For calibration purposes, at least 6 films irradiated doses
ranging between 0,5 and 3 Gy (Fig.1). The scans of the
images of the exposed film were acquired with RGB Canon
ScanLide100 scanner. The response of the scanner is
matched to the absorbance of the dosimetry film [4]. For
reconstruction of image information only red color channel
was used. Considering that for doses up to 3 Gy, scanner
provides the most sensitive response for EBT2 film from
red colour channel. For all the sessions film orientation
during the scan was in fixed condition. The scanner output
resolution was set to 75 dpi. Software based image
corrections and filters were not applied. Acquisition and
analysis of images was performed using PTW (Freiburg,
Germany) software. Doses distributions were calculated
using an obtained Optical density - Dose calibration curves.

IV.

,assuming that the metal alloy is the etalon (Fig.3, Fig.4).

The maximum difference being 0,27 Gy (13,5% of
prescription dose) and 0,13 Gy (6,5%) for the 4MeV and 16
Mev electron energies respectively.

Fig.1 Metal alloy and composite material transmission factor

comparison for different dose rate values.

RESULTS

Composite and metal transmission factor is independent

on the dose rate value changes (Fig.1). Figure 2 shows a set
of metal alloy and composite transmission measurements
using the 5 electron energies. Transmission coefficient for
composite material is acceptable for electron energies
4MeV (0,34%), 6MeV (0,78%), 9MeV (1,5%) and
12MeV(2,66%), based on the fact that the shield should be
chosen on the basis of allowable transmission (5%) [5] At
16MeV (5,7%) and 20MeV (18,21%) transmission
coefficient significantly exceeds the value of 5%. At
energies 4MeV(0,08%), 6MeV(0,15%), 9MeV(0,25%) and
12MeV (0,5%) transmission difference between metal and

Fig. 2 Metal alloy and composite material transmission factors comparison

IFMBE Proceedings Vol. 50

for different electron beams.

62

G. Boka et al.

3.
4.
5.

Technical Data, Plane-Parallel Ionization Chambers, CNMC

Company Inc
GAFCHROMICEBT2
Dosimetry film.
Available
from:
http://www.gafchromic.com/
F.M.Khan, The phisics of Radiation Therapy (Fourth Edition),
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2010, p292
Author: Galina Boka
Institute: Latvian Oncology center of Riga East University hospital
Street: 4, Hipokrata str.
City: Riga
Country: Latvia
Email: galina_boka@inbox.lv

Fig. 3 Metal alloy and composite material Dose comparison for 4MeV
electron beam

Fig. 4 Metal alloy and composite material Dose comparison for 16MeV
electron beam

V.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the attenuation of tungsten structured

composite material can be effective and safe material for
protection of the patient against radiation It can help to
provide a high targeting precision and can be researched for
different composite material components and proportion.
Further analyses is needed for the composite structure
evaluation. This possibility has to be evaluated by further
studies of dose tungsten particle size (microsize, nanosize)
relationships. Nevertheless, the study results are very
promising and clearly demonstrate superiority of this
compound.

REFERENCES
1.
2.

M.Beyzadeoglu, G.Ozyigit, C.Ebruli. Basic Radiation Oncology,

Springer 2010, p11
F.M.Khan, The phisics of radiation therapy (second edition),
Williams & Wilkins, 2003, p560

IFMBE Proceedings Vol. 50