Determination of calibration f a c t o r s in terms of air kerma and a b s o r b e d

d o s e t o w a t e r i n t h e 60 Co y rays 1
M. BOUTILLON* and A.-M. PERROCHE**
* Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. F-92312 Svres Cedex
** Service Central de Protection contre les Rayonnements Ionisants, F-7S110 "Le

Vcsi-nci

Abstract
The method of calibration of an instrument, as performed at the BIPM
in the G0Co field in terms of air kerma or absorbed dose to water, is
described in detail. The influence of various parameters which can
affect the calibration factor is analysed. The uncertainty is of order 0.3
% and 0.5 5S for calibration factors in terms of air kerma and of
absorbed dose to water, respectively.
1. INTRODUCTION
The BIPM has maintained standards of air kerma since 1973 and of absorbed dose
to water since 1991. These standards are graphite cavity chambers and have been
described elsewhere [1.2]. Measurements of air kerma and absorbed dose are
periodically carried out under reference conditions. Their high stability is shown on Fig.
1. The uncertainty of the determination of air kerma is about 0.2 % and that of
absorbed dose to water 0.4 %. A number of comparisons have been performed between
national laboratories and the BIPM [3 to 6]. The close agreement of the results (Fig. 2)
ensures worldwide uniformity of the measurements.
Secondary instruments calibrated at the BIPM are used for indirect comparisons
of the standards of national laboratories with those of the BIPM, or serve as national
references for countries which have no primary standards. Until now, most of
dosimetric measurements have been based on air kerma. and th,e calibration was
essentially made in terms of this quantity. In the recent years, some standards of
absorbed dose to water have been available in the international community and direct
calibrations in water have begun.
The secondary instruments are generally commercial ionization chambers. During
the calibration, their stability is checked and the effect of various parameters on the
chamber response is determined. The calibration factor is obtained with an uncertainty
of about 0.2 % in terms of air kerma and 0.5 % in terms of absorbed dose to water.
Passive dosimeters (TLD) also serve as transfer instruments and are irradiated at the
BIPM for the periodic comparisons organized by the IAEA.
2. REFERENCE CONDITIONS FOR CALIBRATION
The reference conditions used for calibration or irradiation of passive dosimeters
are the ones recommended by Section I of the Comit Consultatif pour les Etalons des
Rayonnements Ionisants, CCEMRI(I) |7,8). They are:
- distance from source to reference plane : 1 m
- be3" cross section in the reference plane: 10 cm x 10 cm. the energy photon
fluence at the middle of each side of the square being 50 % of the value at the
centre
- depth in water (for absorbed dose calibration): 5 g cm"2.
1

Presented at the consultants' meeting on "External quality audit of the absorbed dose
intercomparison methods used by IAEA", Vienna, 20-22 December 1993.

1 0010
1 0005 -

0.9990

Fig. 1

Stability of the BIPM measurements

1.005

-,
es 1.000

5?

<

0.995
Nisr PTB NMI OMH NRC ARC BSV NPL ENEA IRD OMH ARL
1971 1971 1972 1972 1975 1975 1980 1982 1983 1986 1986 1988

NRC PTB
1989 1989

1.010

1.005

1.000

0.995

J.
1>

0.990

0.985
L.
NPL1
1987/88

Fig. 2

NPL2
1988

NRC1
19B9

NRC2
1989

PTB
1989

NIST
1991

Comparisons of national standards

SZMDM NMI UDZ

1991
1991 1992

The 60 Co source used for the calibration had an activity of 90 TBq (on 1993-1-1).
The scattered component of the beam is 14 %, in terms of energy fluence. The value of
the air kerma rate is S mGy/s in the reference conditions.
3. IONIZATION CHAMBER CALIBRATION
3.1. Definition of the calibration factor
The calibration factors '^ and A'w are given by the relations
N

= *B,PM '

a n d

jV

B1PM '

where KB1p., and D B| p M are the air kerma rate and the absorbed dose rate, measured
with the B1PM standards, and I is the ionization current measured by the transfer
chamber, located in the reference plane, in air or in water.
Although " and D BIPM are very stable in time (o = 0.02 % and 0.03 %,
respectively), these' quantities ' are remeasured a few days before or after each
calibration, for checking purposes. The ionization current I of the transfer chamber is
given for reference conditions of pressure and temperature (101 325 Pa and 20 C) and
for an evacuated air path between source and chamber. It is corrected for the nonequivalence with water of the perspex front window of the phantom. Conventionally,
the ionization current is not corrected for lack of saturation nor for non-uniformity of
the beam over the cross section of the chamber (see Section 5). However, these effects
are indicated on the calibration certificate. No correction is made for the ambient
humidity which lies in the range (50 i 5) %.
3.2. Positioning of the transfer chamber
The transfer chamber is positioned on the beam axis with its centre in the
reference plane. For measurements in air, it is located inside a polystyrene box, with a
thin mylar window of diameter 15 cm. in order to avoid temperature variations. For
measurements in water, a waterproof envelope in perspex. supplied by the BIPM, is
often used and afterwards is given to the laboratory. The water phantom is a perspex
cube (30 X 30 X 30 cm 3 ) with an entrance window 4 mm thick and filled with
demineralized water. The water height is the same for the measurement of D and for
the calibration, since the absorbed dose (as well as the chamber response) is found to
vary substantially with the water height, as shown on Fig. 3.

1.000

0.999

200

210

22C

230

240

250

260

270

280

300

Water height / mm

Fig. 3

Variation of absorbed dose with height of water

Since a chamber is generally not perfectly symmetrical, it Is conventionally

positioned with the number inscribed on its stem pointing towards the radiation source.
This guarantees the reproducibility of the geometrical conditions between calibrations
of a given chamber, performed at different times. Indeed, a check performed with one
chamber revealed a variation of 0.1 % in its response for two positions In opposite
directions around the chamber axis. Care is also taken to maintain a fixed vertical
orientation, a requirement which is critical, particularly for measurements in water (see
Fig. 4).

,
Reference
plane

1,002

1,001

Ionization
chamber

1,000

0,999
5
10
Series number

Fig. 4

15

Effect of a lack of orientation in the chamber response

An alignment laser is used to position the chamber on the beam axis. The distance
between source and chamber (or water phantom) is measured by means of a gauge with
an uncertainty of no more than 0.05 mm. For measurements in water, a small correction
(0.03 % for a day) is applied to the measured ionization current to take into account the
slight increase of the depth in water due to the distortion of the front perspex plate of
the phantom.
3.3. Measurement of the ionization current
After its installation the chamber is left to equilibrate for at least 12 h and is
then subjected to a pre-irradiation of 30 min. Only then do measurements begin. This
prevents extra-cameral leakages. Althought unnecessary
for chambers with good
insulation, this precaution has proved useful in many cases.
The temperature is measured with a thermistor located near the chamber and
outside the beam. The difference between the temperature at the position of the
thermistor and that at the centre of the chamber is less than 0.02 C. The variation of
temperature during a series of measurements is usually less than 0.05 C. Series of
about 30 measurements are performed over a period of several days. The charge
collected during one measurement lies in the range of 2nC to 20 nC. The leakage current
is recorded before and after each series of measurements. Usually, it amounts to less
than 10"1 in relative value. The temperature and pressure are continuously recorded,
and each measurement is corrected accordingly. The standard deviation (1 o) of the
mean value of 1 is of order 0.02 %.

Table 1. Experimental uncertainty of jVk and N v

calibration in air

uncertainty

air kerma rate.

1 r
chamber position
stem influence

0.17 !
0.02 :
0.02 !
0.02 '.

calibration in water

uncertainty

absorbed dose rate

0.43 %

Wer

0.02 %

chamber position
stem influence
waterproof envelope

0.05 %
< 0.01 %
0.09 %

/V.

"

0.5 ;

Table 1 gives the various uncertainties entering in the determination of the

calibration factor. The resulting uncertainties of ' and A'w are 0.2 % and 0.5 %.
respectively.
3.4. Check on the stability of the chamber response
The mean values of / obtained for each series of measurements are checked, so as
to detect any evolution in the chamber response. Fig. 5 illustrates some typical
examples. In case a, the overall scatter of the results is consistent with the daily
1,006

TT

F ' I

To

1,004
1,002
S

1,000

0,998

0.996

'S

0,994

ir

CP

<

<O

0
0

0*

0,992

case

iii

0,988
1

case

0,990

1
2

Time I day

Fig. 5

Behaviour of the response of some chambers

scatter. The chamber is assumed to be stable. In case b, the agreement is less good but
no evolution is suspected. In case c. an evolution clearly exists and in this case one
cannot be really sure that the plateau reached after a few days will be stable. Fig. 6
shows the excellent long-term stability of the response .T two chambers which conform
to case a of Fig. 5.
4. IRRADIATION OF TLD DOSIMETERS
TLD dosimeters provided by the AIEA are irradiated in the reference conditions
with doses of 2 Gy. Their installation at the reference depth in water is made following
the recommendations of the AIEA.
The samples are irradiated for a period of a few minutes. The time needed for the
rotation of the source between its rest and working positions, introduces an
uncertainty of about 0.02 % in the absorbed dose delivered to the dosimeters.

10

15

Time/year

Fig. 6

Long-term stability of some chambers

5. INFLUENCE OF SOME PARAMETERS ON THE CALIBRATION FACTOR

The conditions of measurement used for the calibration of a chamber at the BIPM
can be slightly different from those existing at the laboratory where the chamber will
be used. The question arises therefore of whether this difference can affect its response.
Some experiments have been carried out to evaluate the possible influence of various
parameters.
5.1. Source
To check the influence of the beam characteristics (cross-section, scatter,
penumbra, etc.), six chambers (Shonka and NEL types) have been calibrated in air in
the beams of two different BIPM sources (0,8 TBq and 90 TBq). The calibration factors,
measured in the two beams, corrected for ion recombination, differ by 0.1 % to 0.2 %
according to the chamber. In view of the uncertainty (o = 0.05 %). this difference is
hardly significant.
5.2. Dose rate
The loss of ions due to recombination causes a reduction in the Ionization current
I which varies with the current and hence with the dose rate [9,101- For the voltage
usually applied to a chamber of Shonka type , or NEL, the resulting loss, in relative
value, is (1.4 + 2.6 /3/nA)10"3. or (1.4 + 0.4 / s /nA)10" 3 . where / s is the ionization current
obtained at the saturation plateau. The two terms in these expressions represent the
initial and the volume recombination, respectively. Thus, for two dose rates the
difference in ion collection can be appreciable. For illustration, in the two BIPM beams,
the difference is 0.15 % and 0.03 % for Shonka and NEL chambers, respectively (Fig. 7).
5.3. Beam non-uniformity
Dua to the geometry of the source and collimation system, the beam presents a
radial non-uniformity which is small in air but more important in water [11]. The
results of an experiment on this effect have shown that, for a chamber with 10 mm
(20 mm) diameter located at one meter from the BIPM source, the effect is 0.03 %
(0.15 %) in air and 0.09 % (0.39 %) in water. If the beam of the laboratory, to which the
transfer chamber belongs, presents a non-uniformity different from that of the BIPM,
this can introduce an appreciable bias.

0.5

150

200

250

350

400

V/Volt

Fig. 7

Loss of ions due to recombination for NEL and Shonka chambere

5.4. Perspex envelope

Transfer chambers are normally used in the laboratory with the same waterproof
envelope that was used for the calibration at the BIPM. However, for some applications
it is useful to know how this envelope influences the chamber response. As an example,
the effect of the BIPM envelope (1.5 mm perspex) amounts to 0.07 %.
5.5. Depth in water
The calibration of transfer chambers in terms of absorbed dose is performed at
the reference depth 5 g cm"2. However, chambers are sometimes used in the laboratory
to give the absorbed dose at other depths in water. Thus, to determine the influence of
the depth on the calibration factor, the latter has also been measured at 17 g cm"2, for
chambers of different type. The results, given in Table 2, show a variation of not more
than 0.1 % for all chambers. This variation is not significant since the uncertainty of
D(5 g cm"2)/D(17 g cm"2) is 0.15 %.

Table 2. Relative variation of N

chamber type
NEL2561
NEL 2561
NEL 2561
NEL 2561
NEL 2561
NEL 2571
NEL 2571

between 5 g cm*2 and 17 g cm"2, for sonic chambers

chamber type
- 0.17 %
- 0.04 %

- 0.01

+ 0.03 %
+ 0.09 %
+ 0.11 %
+ 0.09 %

Capintec PR06
Exradin T2
Exradin T1
Exradin Al
Shonka

+ 0.05 %

+ 0.10 %
+ 0.05 %
+ 0.10 %
+ 0.00 %

Table 3. Consistency of the N /iVk ratio for a given type o f chamber

type
NE 25G1
NE 2571
Capintec
Exradin T2

number of
chambers
8
4
3
5

range of values
of ( N J N J
1.084
1.097
1.093
1.090

to
to
to
to

1.091
1.099
1.095
1.093

6. EXPERIMENTAL RATIO NW/NK

Transfer chambers of various types have been calibrated at the BIPM in terms of
both air kerma and absorbed dose to water 112.131. The constancy of the ratio N^/N^
for a given type of chamber gives useful information o n their uniformity. This is ot
interest since, in the usual situation, such chambers are calibrated only in air and the
factor for water is obtained by a calculation based on a code of practice. Table 3 shows
the results for some chambers. The statistical uncertainty of a ratio Is 0.03 %. Although
the number is not large, it is clear that significant variations occur from one chamber to
another.
Many transfer chambers have been calibrated at other laboratories (PTB, NPL.
NRC. BE\0- They find N W /N K ratios In fair agreement with those reported here, if
account is taken of the comparisons of the respective standards.
However, the main interest of these experimental ratios is that they offer the
possibility of checking the methods used at present to estimate the absorbed dose to
water from a calibration in air. The uncertainty of the experimental ratio N W /N K is 0.3
%. less than the combined uncertainty since some factors entering in the determination
of both D and cancel (such as
/p and s c a ) . This relatively small uncertainty,
together with the excellent reproducibility of th measurements (o = 0.03 %), allow to
perform a powerful check. Fig. 9 shows the ratio C1^ =
) e x ] i / (/,.)1,
where N ' is the experimental value at the effective point of measurement and
is
"brained from the code of practice of the IAEA [14]. Some remarks can
be made in view of the results :
- The values, on the whole, show an agreement which is better than 1 %. This is
compatible with the uncertainty quoted by the IAEA code. The present situation, at
least at G0Co energy, is thus quite satisfactory.
- For a given type of chamber differences of up to 0.8 ? have been observed between
the experimental ratios N W /N K for chambers of the same type. This deviation is far
from negligible and not considered by the code.
- A systematic deviation of order 0.3 % is observed between the values of CK^ obtained
for chambers with a thin or with a thick electode. This gives an indication on the
uncertainty introduced by the approximation made in the IAEA code for the
determination of the effective point of measurement (shift of 0.5 r, whatever is the
shape of the cavity).
- It is instructive to compare the respective variations of Nw/NK
and Nw'/N as a
function of depth in water. The results, given in Fig.10, show that the second ratio
(which is to be compared with
^ depends significantly on the depth in
water. Nevertheless, except for chambers with a large cavity (as Shonka chamber for
example, which are scarcely used for absorbed dose determination), the bias is well
within the uncertainty quoted by the IAEA code.

10

Variation of t h e Ionization current / tor r a d i a l

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

Radial displacement (cm)

Fig. 8

Non-uniformity of the BIPM beam

rC

>.

Absorbed dose to water.

60

Co

1.000
Ratio of direct and indirect calibration factors
for various types of chambers.

0.995

NE'2561

Fig. 9

NE-2571

_L

JL

PR-06

Exradin T2

Exradin T1

Exradin AI

i, Comparison between IAEA and BIPM values of C

K
X

11

0.5

m "
s
m

T1

T2
A1
PR06

i1
Shonka

2571

1
0

2561
i
1

1
2

1
5

1
6

i
8

l
9

i
10

Cavity air thickness / mm

Fig. 10

Relative variation of the ratios N/N K and N W '/N K between 5 and 17 g cm"2

7. CONCLUSION
Significant progress has recently been made, in the 6 Co field, for the
determination of absorbed dose to water, which is the main quantity of interest in
radiotherapy. Direct calibration in terms of absorbed dose to water is now possible and
it allows the transfer instrument to measure this quantity in the beam of the user in a
simple way with a reduced uncertainty.
Further developments are needed to improve the accuracy of current standards of
absorbed dose to water. As soon as a sufficient number of new standards becomes
available in the specialized laboratories, the present system of indirect calibration of
instruments in terms of absorbed dose to water - which is based on air kerma
calibration - can be progressively replaced by direct calibration in water. However, in
order to take full advantage of the increase in accuracy thus gained all along the
calibration chain, experimental work should still be devoted to a careful study of the
behaviour of transfer instruments. This is a task for international and national
organizations.
References
11] BOUT1LLON M., N1ATEL M.-T., "A study of a graphite cavity chamber for absolute
exposure measurements of 60 Co gamma rays". Metrologa. 9 (1973) 139-146.
12) BOUTILLON M.. PERROCHE A.-M., "Ionometric determination of absorbed dose to
water for cobalt-60 gamma rays", 1993, Phys. Med. Biol. 38 (1993) 439-454.
[3] BIPM, "NPL-BIPM comparison of absorbed dose from G0Co gamma radiation", BIPM in
Com. Cons. Etalons. Mes. Ray. Ionisants, Section (I), (1988), Document CCEMRI(I)/S814 (Offilib. F-75240 Paris Cedex 05).
141 BOUTILLON M., COURSEY B.M., HOHLFELD ., OWEN . and ROGERS D.W.O.,
"Comparison of primary water absorbed dose standards". International Symposium on
measurement assurance in dosimetry, 1993, IAEA-SM-330/48

12

[5] SHORTT K.R ROSS C.IC. SCHNEIDER M HOHLFELD , ROOS M. and

PERROCHE A.-M., "A comparison of absorbed dose standards for high energy x-rays",
submitted for publication in Phys. Med. Biol.
16] PERROCHE A.-M, "Comparisons and calibrations at the BIPM (1991-1993)".
Document CCEMR1(0/93-5. 1993. 9 pages.
| 7 | BIPM. "Comparaisons d'talons de dose absorbe", in BIPM Com. Cons. Etalons. Mes.
Ray. Ionisants. Section 0). Rl(5) .1979. (Offlib. F-75240 Paris Cedex 05).
]S] BIPM, "Rapports des groupes de travail", in BIPM Com. Cons. Etalons Mes. Ray.
Ionisants (Section I). 1981. 6. R(I)9. (Offilib. F-75240 Paris Cedex 05).
[9] NIATEL M.T., "Correction de saturation pour une chambre sphrique Shonka", BIPM,
P roc.-Verb. Coro. Int. Poids et Mesures.1983, 51. 64-65.
110] BROSED A-, (CIEMAT. Madrid), personal communication (1931).
[11] BOUTILLON M. and PERROCHE A.-M. "Radial non-uniformity of the BIPM
beam", Rapport B1PM-89/2. 1989, 9 pages.
[12] BOUTILLON M.. "Experimental determination of * in
RI(0/93-6, 1993, 5 pages.

60

Co

beam". Document

[13] BOUTILLON M. and PERROCHE A.-M.. "Comparisons and calibrations at the Bureau
International des Poids et Mesures in the field of X and rays", International
Symposium on measurement assurance in dosimetry, 1993, 1AEA-SM-330/22.
[141 IAEA. "Absorbed dose determination in photon and electron beams". Technical
Report Series n 277. 1987, (IAEA, Vienna).

13