Cargando…

Does nitrogen gas bubbled through a low density polymer gel dosimeter solution affect the polymerization process?

BACKGROUND: On account of the lower electron density in the lung tissue, the dose distribution in the lung cannot be verified with the existing polymer gel dosimeters. Thus, the aims of this study are to make a low density polymer gel dosimeter and investigate the effect of nitrogen gas bubbles on t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shahbazi-Gahrouei, Daryoush, Gholami, Mehrdad, Pourfallah, Tayyeb Allahverdi, Keshtkar, Mohammad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4434445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26015914
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.156651
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: On account of the lower electron density in the lung tissue, the dose distribution in the lung cannot be verified with the existing polymer gel dosimeters. Thus, the aims of this study are to make a low density polymer gel dosimeter and investigate the effect of nitrogen gas bubbles on the R(2) responses and its homogeneity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two different types of low density polymer gel dosimeters were prepared according to a composition proposed by De Deene, with some modifications. In the first type, no nitrogen gas was perfused through the gel solution and water. In the second type, to expel the dissolved oxygen, nitrogen gas was perfused through the water and gel solution. The post-irradiation times in the gels were 24 and 5 hours, respectively, with and without perfusion of nitrogen gas through the water and gel solution. RESULTS: In the first type of gel, there was a linear correlation between the doses and R(2) responses from 0 to 12 Gy. The fabricated gel had a higher dynamic range than the other low density polymer gel dosimeter; but its background R(2) response was higher. In the second type, no difference in R(2) response was seen in the dose ranges from 0 to 18 Gy. Both gels had a mass density between 0.35 and 0.45 g.cm(-3) and CT values of about -650 to -750 Hounsfield units. CONCLUSION: It appeared that reactions between gelatin-free radicals and monomers, due to an increase in the gel temperature during rotation in the household mixer, led to a higher R(2)-background response. In the second type of gel, it seemed that the collapse of the nitrogen bubbles was the main factor that affected the R(2)-responses.