This application claims priority to foreign European patent application No. EP 17290157.1, filed on Dec. 7, 2017, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
The invention relates to an apparatus for performing nanoparticle-assisted external beam radiotherapy and to a dosimetry method carried out using said apparatus.
Radiotherapy, or radiation therapy, is a cancer treatment wherein ionizing radiation is used to control or kill malignant cells. Ionizing radiation works by damaging the DNA, as well as other biomolecules, of cancerous cells both directly (e.g. radiation can directly brake DNA strands) and indirectly, by generating free radicals through water radiolysis; the free radicals subsequently attacking the DNA and other biomolecules.
Radiotherapy may be curative in localized cancer or palliative for reducing pain in case of cancer spreading and metastases. It is also used before surgery to reduce the volume of the tumor and could be part of adjuvant therapy to prevent tumor recurrence after surgery. Radiation therapy is often combined with chemotherapy, with which it is synergistic.
External beam radiotherapy is the most common form of radiotherapy. It uses ionizing radiation—most often X-rays, but sometimes electron or proton beams—generated by an external source (e.g. an X-ray tube or a linear accelerator) pointed at a target region of the patient's body. In contrast to sealed source radiotherapy and unsealed source radiotherapy, in which the radiation source is inside the body, external beam radiotherapy directs the radiation at the tumor from outside the body. The energy of the ionizing radiation depends on the depth of target tumor. For X-rays it may vary from several tens of keV (kiloelectronvolts) to several MeV (megaelectronvolts).
It is known that metal (usually gold) nanoparticles localized in the target tumor may enhance the therapeutic effect of ionizing radiation. On the one hand, this is due to the fact that the metal nanoparticles enhance X-ray absorption in the tumor; on the other hand, when irradiated, they emit electrons which increase the radiolysis rate.
Nanoparticles tend to accumulate in cancer cells due to the Enhanced Permeability and Retention Effect characterizing said cells. They can also be injected into the tumor or functionalized at their surface to increase the specificity of their localization. Their size is not critical for radiotherapy; however a diameter of less than 6 nm is preferred to ease their elimination from the body.
A drawback of external beam radiotherapy is that the dose delivered to the target region of the body cannot be measured, but only be estimated a priori using physical modeling. The estimation is unavoidably affected by a significant uncertainty, which limits the scope for optimizing the therapeutic protocol.
The invention aims at overcoming this drawback in the case of nanoparticle-assisted X-ray external beam radiotherapy. More specifically, it aims at making possible an (at least indirect) measurement of the delivered X-ray dose and, preferably, of the mass of the nanoparticles within the treated region of the patient's body.
The invention relies on the fact that irradiated nanoparticles emit low-energy (<100 keV) X-ray fluorescence (XRF) radiation, which can be detected outside the patient's body. Measuring the intensity ratio of two different fluorescence lines allows quantifying the X-ray absorption of the patient's body from the tumor region to the detection. By performing two measurements with inverted relative positions of the source and of the detector relative to the treated region of the patient's body, and assuming that the spectral flux density (in units [photons/time/area/bandwidth]) of the source is known (e.g. from direct measurement, or by precise modeling of the source), it is possible to determine the delivered dose and the quantity of the fluorescent material (metal nanoparticles) in the target region.
According to the invention, an X-ray filter disposed between the source and the target region is used to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the fluorescence measurements.
An object of the present invention, allowing achieving this aim, is an apparatus for performing nanoparticle-assisted external beam radiotherapy comprising:
wherein:
Another object of the invention is a method of determining an X-ray dose delivered at a region of a patient body using such an apparatus, the region of the patient body being positioned at the target point of the apparatus, the method comprising the steps of:
Particular embodiments of the inventive apparatus and method constitute the subject-matter of the dependent claims.
Additional features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the subsequent description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, which show:
As illustrated on
an X-ray source XRS, such as a conventional radiotherapy X-ray tube (alternatively, an external X-ray source may be fitted to the apparatus), adapted for generating an X-ray beam XRB propagating along a propagation direction PRD. Typically, the X-ray source XRS operates in the orthovoltage (200-500 keV) or megavoltage (1-6 MeV) range.
An X-ray filter F, disposed on the propagation path of the X-ray beam—the design of this filter will be discussed extensively.
An X-ray spectrometer SPM, sensible in all or part of the 7-130 keV spectral range. Indeed, for all nanoparticle materials of interest, Kα and Kβ fluorescence lines are comprised in the 10-100 keV, and it is preferable that the spectrometer is sensitive in a region of at least ±30% of this range.
The spectrometer SPM has an optical axis SOA which forms an angle θ with the propagation direction PRD. The angle θ is significantly different from zero. Preferably it is greater than or equal to 90° when measured considering that the optical axis SOA is directed toward the spectrometer. The criteria for determining the optimal value of θ will be discussed later.
The propagation direction PRD and the optical axis SOA cross at a target point TP. When the apparatus is used, a body part PB of a cancer patient, previously treated with metal nanoparticles, is positioned on the path of the X-ray beam in such a way that a nanoparticle-loaded tumor TNP is situated at the target point. This way, X-rays impinging on the tumor excite X-ray fluorescence of the metal nanoparticles localized in the tumor; the spectrometer detects and analyzes the X-ray fluorescence radiation XRF emitted along its optical axis SOA.
The X-ray source, the filter, the spectrometer and possibly a couch, armchair or the like (reference C on
When the apparatus is in its first configuration, the X-ray beam XRB crosses, on its way to the tumor, a first portion PBA of the patient's body part, characterized by a position (x) and energy (E) dependent absorption coefficient μA(x,E). The propagation length inside the first portion PBA is designated by dA and the overall energy-dependent attenuation by attA(E). The X-ray fluorescence radiation XRF originating from the nanoparticles inside the tumor crosses, on its way to the spectrometer, a second portion PBB of the patient's body part, characterized by a position (x) and energy (E) dependent absorption coefficient μB(x,E). The propagation length inside the second portion PBB is designated by dB and the overall energy-dependent attenuation by attB(E). In the second configuration of the apparatus, the roles of the first and second portions of the patient's body are exchanged.
A processor PR is configured to receive spectral data from the X-ray spectrometer in the two configurations of the apparatus, and use these data to compute the X-ray dose delivered to the tumor, and preferably also the mass of the metal nanoparticles. These computations will be described in detail later.
In the following, position index P∈{A,B} will be used to designate either the first configuration (source at point A) or the second configuration (source at point B).
On
F0 designates the “internal” X-ray flux of the source, and F0(E) the corresponding spectral flux density. In principle, F0 may not be the same in the first and in the second configuration, therefore F0,P (i.e; F0,A and F0,B) will be used in the following. F0(E) is a function of the acceleration voltage U and of the operation current I of the X-ray source (tube).
F1,P (i.e. F1,A and F1,B) designates the “primary” X-ray flux of the source, taking into account internal absorption (e.g. from the anode and the housing) and F1,P(E) the corresponding spectral flux density.
F2,P (i.e. F2,A and F2,B) designates the “filtered” X-ray flux, taking into account the absorption from filter F. F2,P(E) is the corresponding spectral flux density.
F3,P (i.e. F3,A and F3,B) designates the X-ray flux reaching the tumor, taking into account the absorption from bodily tissues of the first portion PBA (in the first configuration of the apparatus) or of the second portion PBB (in the second configuration of the apparatus) of the patient's body part. F3,P(E) is the corresponding spectral flux density.
F4,P (i.e. F4,A and F4,B) designates the X-ray fluorescence flux emitted by the metal nanoparticle inside the tumor. F4,P(E) is the corresponding spectral flux density.
F5,P (i.e. F5,A and F5,B) designates the X-ray fluorescence flux reaching the spectrometer, taking into account the absorption from bodily tissues of the second portion PBB (in the first configuration of the apparatus) or of the first portion PBA (in the second configuration of the apparatus) of the patient's body part. F5,P(E) is the corresponding spectral flux density.
F5,A and F5,B are the measured quantities, from which F3,A and F3,B—and therefore the radiometric dose—as well as the nanoparticles mass mnp can be computed, as it will be explained in detail.
In the following, the geometrical flux attenuation of the X-ray beam is not taken into account but can be easily included in the consideration knowing the beam properties (spot size, divergence) and the geometry of the setup.
The interaction probability between X-rays and matter can be described with Beer's law. According to this, an initial flux F0 is attenuated to
F(x,E)=F0(E)·e−μ(E)x (1)
after passing a length x through matter with an attenuation coefficient μ. The attenuation length
λ=1/μ (2)
describes an attenuation to e−1≈36.8% (or “by 1−e−1”) and can be interpreted as a mean interaction length.
The range of the zoom of
For energies E≥50 keV incoherent scattering becomes the dominant effect with a mean interaction length λ≥4 cm.
These number demonstrate that soft human tissue has an absorption coefficient which is relatively constant within the energy range of XRF (50 keV<E<100 keV).
X-ray attenuation is present for the incoming beam and for the outgoing XRF radiation even though the energies can be quite different (i.e. the X-ray beam can have energies of several hundreds of keV up to several MeV).
The filtered flux F2,P is considered to be, a priori, well known. This might be the case because of a well calibrated tube and filter setup or by direct flux measurement or any combination of both. The subsequent fluxes can be calculated in the following way:
where “:=” means “is defined by”.
The attenuation factors μP(x,E) along the beam path and along the XRF escape path are unknown. Only their integral contributions, i.e. the attenuations attP, are of interest:
Even though the attP are unknown, their energy dependence, i.e. their spectral shape, can be considered to be well described by existing models for soft tissue (e.g the already discussed ICRU-4 component model).
The introduction of a mean attenuation length (represented on
attA(E)≈μmodel(E)·
allows describing the energy dependence of the attenuation by a model while the intensity of the attenuation is set with the constant factor
The fluorescence generator function G(E,mnp,Znp) depends on the cross section for photoelectric interaction σPE(E), which itself depends on the photon energy E, the total mass of the fluorescence particles mnp within the primary beam, and the fluorescence yield y(Z) of the fluorescence element.
where r is the distance from the detector and the target point (estimated e.g. using independently-acquired tomographic information) and matom is the atomic mass number of the metal element constituting the nanoparticles. If the nanoparticles are made of an alloy, individual fluorescence generator functions will be computed for each element of the alloy.
The mean attenuation constant
It is worth mentioning that the relative change δη does not depend on the initial flux ratio η0.
Even though the difference between Kα1 and Kβ1 are getting smaller at lower Z, δη increases for lower Z because of the stronger absorption at lower energies.
Besides the relative change δη, noise is another important factor that limits the detection capability of
The relative uncertainty Δηrel is finally given by:
which is shown on
The flux ratio ηA and ηB can be directly measured for the two beam-detector positions, without the need of knowing the length dA or dB of the absorbing tissue:
In fact, equivalent length
which can be used (see equations 3 and 7) to find F3,A and F3,B.
The dosimetric quantity “kerma” (Kinetic Energy Released per MAss) K is defined as the quotient of dEtr by dm, where dEtr is the mean sum of the initial kinetic energies of all the charged particles liberated in a mass dm of a material by the uncharged particles incident on dm, thus
It can be calculated [Hubbell and Seltzer, 1995, 1999] as an integral value of the flux at the tumor position using the mass energy-transfer coefficient, μtr/ρ:
Here F3,P(E)·E·ΔtP defines the photon energy fluence calculated as the product of the flux F3,P, the photon energy E, and the beam-on time ΔtP in configuration P.
The kerma does not take into account that some fraction of the kinetic energy can escape—for example by Bremsstrahlung—from mass element dm. The mass energy absorption coefficient involves this effect and is defined as:
μen/ρ=(1−g)·μtr/ρ. (21)
Here, the factor g represents the average fraction of the kinetic energy of secondary charged particles (produced in all the types of interactions) that is subsequently lost in radiative (photon-emitting) energy-loss processes as the particles slow to rest in the medium [Hubbell and Seltzer, 1999]. For details on the calculation of g, see also Hubbell and Seltzer [1999]. Tabulated values for μtr and μen for ICRU 4-component soft tissue can be found in the same reference.
Similar to Eq. (20) the absorbed dose D, which is defined as the mean energy
For medical applications the absorbed dose D is more interesting than the kerma K, but it should be stressed that the inventive approach allows us to compute both quantities.
Furthermore, the information given by F3,P(E), i.e. the energy resolved flux at the tumor level, is of greater value than the integrated dosimetric quantities K and D. This might be useful to further investigate the enhancement of radiosensitization observed in nanoparticle based radiotherapy.
Beside the determination of the absorbed dose, the presented approach also allows measuring the total mass of nanoparticles mnp at the tumor position.
Like the kerma and the dose, the mass mnp is obtained by two measurements performed in the two different configurations. An average of the two allows minimizing statistical fluctuations:
mnp=(mnp,A+mnp,B)/2 (23)
The total mass mnp allows correcting for the, up to now, neglected physical dose enhancement caused by the increased absorption by high-Z nanoparticles. The presented calculations for the kerma and the absorbed dose can be modified by an increased mean absorption coefficient
μtr/ρ=MICRU4·μtr
μen/ρ=MICRU4·μen
where MICRU4 and Mnp are the mass ratios for soft tumor tissue (with mass mtumor) and for the material of the nanoparticles, respectively.
Even if the relative amount of nanoparticles is negligible compared to the soft tissue, the knowledge of mnp is an important item of information additional to the absorbed dose D, because the enhancement of radiosensitization by nanoparticles is believed to be caused by additional chemical and biological effects of the irradiated nanoparticles that exceed the physical dose enhancement by far. Cheng et al. [2012] report a chemical enhancement that exceeds the physical expected enhancement by a factor of about 2000. Therefore, the total mass mnp not only allows correcting for the neglected physical dose enhancement but is also an important input parameter for chemical and biological models.
As a synthesis, the dose/kerma can be summarized with the following steps:
1. The apparatus is set in its first configuration (A=source, B=detector).
2. F2,A(E) is measured or known.
3. F5,B(E) is measured.
4.
5. attB(E) is computed using equation (7).
6. The configuration is inverted, i.e. the apparatus is set in its second configuration (B=source, A=detector).
7. F2,B(E) is measured or known.
8. F5,A(E) is measured.
9
10. attA(E) is computed using equation (7).
11. F3,A(E) and F3,B(E) are computed using equation (3).
12. Optionally, the kerma K is computed using equations (19) and (20).
13. The absorbed dose D is computed using equation (22).
Moreover, if the nanoparticle mass also has to be determined:
14. F4,A(E) and F4,B(E) are computed using equation (5).
15. mnp,P is computed using equations (4) and (8).
16. mnp is computed using equation (23).
First of all, the nanoparticle (NP) type is chosen, as well as their estimated mass inside the tumor, mnp,0. Nanoparticles may be “atomic”, i.e. comprising a single heavy metal such as Hf or Au or compound (e.g. Au+Hf, Au+Bi, etc.).
The beam type, and more particularly its tube voltage and therefore maximum energy Emax has also to be chosen. In particular, diagnostic (Emax<150 keV), orthovoltage (200 keV<Emax<500 keV) or megavoltage (1 MeV<Emax<6 Mev) may be used. The filter material(s) and thickness are then chosen, also taking into account the choice of nanoparticle material(s). The filter characteristics and the beam type determine the filtered flux F2, which can be either measured or computed.
Moreover, the nanoparticle material(s) and the beam type allow choosing the observation angle θ.
Then the nanoparticle-loaded tumor is irradiated through the filter, XRF radiation is recorded at observation angle θ and the Kβ/Kα ratio is computed for two symmetrical configurations of the apparatus. This allows computing F3,A, F3,B, attA, attB, F5,A, F5,B, which in turn allows computing the dose D received by the tumor and the actual nanoparticle mass mnp.
The dimensioning of the filter, the choice of the material of which the nanoparticles are made and that of the optimal detection angle θ are important issues for optimizing the sensitivity of the invention. They will be considered in detail in the following.
The idea behind using a filter is to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio of XRF measurements which uses broad band X-ray emitters, such as X-ray tubes, as primary sources. It applies for all kind of X-ray tubes, i.e. diagnostic tubes (Emax<150 keV), orthovoltage tubes (200 keV<Emax<500 keV), and mega-voltage tubes (Emax>1000 keV).
The filter is used to reduce the undesirable X-ray flux of the beam within a specific energy interval. The combination of this filter with a properly chosen observation angle θ allows reducing the background around the observed XRF lines. The choice of the observation angle θ depends on two independent considerations. First, according to the general properties of coherent and incoherent scattering, θ should be close to 90° in order to reduce the scattered background component, see
For XRF measurements, a filter that reduces the background radiation at the energy of the XRF lines is highly desirable as it increases the signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement. This is especially true for setup configurations with a large background radiation that results from scattered photons of the primary beam.
The XRF lines of a target material are produced by the integrated flux above the corresponding absorption edge of the target material. The absorption edge of an element is always at higher energies than the respective XRF lines. Therefore, an ideal filter would filter out all X-rays with an energy below the absorption edge of the target material and pass all X-rays with higher energies (see
Unfortunately, such a filter with a sharp rising edge in its transmittance for increasing energies cannot be produced. The reversed effect, i.e. a sharp falling edge of the transmittance of a material for increasing energies, is realized by the photoelectric absorption at the corresponding absorption edge, see
The principal idea is to shape the primary X-ray beam in a way that it has an energy interval with a reduced flux. This region of reduced background is then shifted to the position of the XRF lines by incoherent scattering.
In the typical energy range of the primary X-ray beam (several tens to hundreds of keV), the dominant photon interactions with the target material are coherent scattering, incoherent scattering (often misnamed as Compton scattering), and photoelectric absorption. The observation angle for the XRF detection is typically chosen θ>0° in order to be “out of the beam” in a low background environment. Therefore, only coherent and incoherent scattering contribute to the background radiation and photoelectric absorption can be neglected for the following discussion. Furthermore, the discussion is limited to the case of unpolarized X-rays, as this is the usual case for the primary radiation.
In most cases, a minimal cross section is reached for scattering angles θ≥90°.
The atomic number of the filter material Zfilter and the atomic number of the target material Ztarget are related by:
Zfilter=Ztarget+n. (26)
Three cases must be distinguished:
The energy difference between the K-edge and the XRF lines depends on the atomic number Z. Furthermore, the energy loss by incoherent scattering is itself a function of the energy. Therefore, not all of the three cases presented above are possible for each target material.
Observing the XRF under an observation angle θ (see
For the cases n≤0 and n>0, a proper selection of the observation angle θ allows shifting the low flux component of the primary beam to the XRF lines which enhances the signal-to-noise ratio. The energy of the scattered photons Esc (with initial energy E) can be calculated according to.
See
The case n>0 can only be applied if the energy difference between the fluorescence line and the absorption edge of the filter is smaller than the maximal energy loss caused by incoherent scattering (i.e. for 180° back scattering). For the Kα1 line (which is the dominant XRF line) this condition can be reached for target materials with Ztarget≥65, see
In the following calculation the filter thickness is chosen in a way to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio of the Kα1 fluorescence line. The calculations for other fluorescence lines can be done in an equivalent way.
For a given primary photon flux F1(E|Emax) and a given filter (with thickness d and attenuation coefficient μ(E)) the secondary flux F2(E|Emax) that exits the filter can be calculated according to:
F2(E|Emax)=F1(E|Emax)·e−(E)d (28)
The following calculations use a theoretic model (Hernandez and Boone [2014]) for the outgoing tube flux F1(E|Emax). The intensity of this flux—which can be set by the tube current—is of no further interest for the calculation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), but only the spectral shape. Therefore, all of the input spectra are normalized in a way that their maximum is set to 1.
The flux F2 is slightly modified by human tissue absorption. While the associated total flux reduction cannot be neglected for an accurate dose calculation, it is of no interest for the SNR calculation due to the normalization. The reshaping of the spectra by the human tissue is of importance, but it is considered to be small compared to the reshaping effect of the filter. Therefore, for the filter thickness optimization, F2(E)≈F3(E) is assumed. The flux at the tumor level F3(E) is contributing to the signal and to the noise generation in different ways so that an optimal filter thickness can be estimated.
The fluorescence signal S results from all photons with an energy above the K-edge of the target EK weighted with the probability for photoelectric absorption σPE(E):
Here the question arises in what way the maximal tube energy Emax influences the signal generation. To answer this, it is helpful to compute the cross section for the photoelectric effect normalized to its maximal value at the absorption edge:
The cumulative distribution of σ*PE(E) is then calculated as:
In order to combine the effect of photoelectric absorption with a realistic tube spectrum, the signal function S(E) and the total signal S are computed as follows:
The cumulative distribution function CDFS(E) shows how the signal accumulates with energy and is for illustrative purposes only.
All calculations are performed by a numerical integration using a 500 eV binning and Emax=200 keV.
The mercury filter (n=+1) clearly shows an enhanced signal generation between the K-edge of gold (˜80 keV) and the K-edge of Hg (˜83 keV). The thicker the filter the more prominent is this effect.
The noise rate N affecting the XRF signal is proportional to the number of photons per unit time within an interval ΔEsc around the fluorescence line in the scattered spectrum (with flux F4); this interval is, in the following, called the fluorescence interval. Instead of calculating the spectrum of the scattered flux F4, it is also possible to calculate the noise rate N by shifting the fluorescence interval to the unscattered spectrum (with flux F3). ΔEunsc is named in the following as noise interval:
In the following example for a gold XRF detection of Kα1 with ΔE=4 keV at θ=130°, the fluorescence interval ΔEsc=[66, 70] keV in the scattered spectrum becomes a noise interval ΔEunsc=[83.8, 90.3] keV in the unscattered spectrum.
In order to calculate the noise intensity, the spectrum must be modified according to the detector resolution which is assumed to be Gaussian:
F3res(E)=F3(E)*Gauss(E|resolution) (38)
where “*” represents convolution. This is necessary as the steep falling K-edge of the filter is smoothed by the detector resolution and the detected flux on the right sight of the K-edge (i.e. a part of the noise interval) is enhanced.
With this model the signal-to-noise ratio is always getting better the thicker the filter is chosen. The reason for this can be seen on
multiple scattering inside the filter: probable because of high flux;
multiple scattering in the sample: probable because of large volume (in the centimeter range);
scattering effects in the detector or in the detector housing: probable because only single scattering is required for this effect.
The true noise contribution can only be evaluated with an accurate simulation of the total setup (tube, filter, sample, camera, detector) which is out of the scope of this estimation. But because the noise contribution is only of interest within a small interval, the noise contribution within the noise interval can be approximated by adding an additional constant (i.e. a noise component independent of the filter; this component can be energy-dependent, but its spectral shape is of no interest as only a relative small spectral region of it adds to the total noise) minimal noise flux Nc. So, Eq. (37) becomes:
The following calculation investigates the effect of such a minimal noise flux on the SNR while an estimation of this minimal noise flux is given later.
The calculated signal-to-noise ratios are shown on
It can be checked that an accurate knowledge about the constant noise flux is essential for a proper choice of the filter thickness:
without a filter (d=0) the SNR is better the smaller Nc.
For d>0, the SNR gets better for low background levels and worse for high constant noise levels. Indeed, if Nc is large the noise cannot be reduced with a filter; but the signal is reduced by filtering.
The threshold constant noise level for which filtering reduces the SNR is relatively independent of Emax. Similar calculations performed for Iridium, Gold and Mercury filters shows that it is also relative independent of the filter material. Its value is of the order of 0.02.
Using X-ray tubes with higher accelerating voltages results in a better SNR (with filter and without filter); this is especially true for low constant noise values.
The optimal filter thickness is independent of the tube voltage
The question how to transform the dimensionless constant noise value to a real flux and which value applies for the experiment can be answered by comparing the calculated spectrum with a measured one.
In conclusion, the filter can be chosen in three steps:
choosing a nanoparticle material, preferably such that it allows an observation angle close to θ=90°—i.e. having an atomic number of 50 or more.
Making a test measurement (with the target sample, but without XRF material) using this filter with a relatively large thickness so that your measurement is dominated by Nc. This allows determining the constant noise flux by fitting the model to the measurement.
Choosing the filter thickness that optimizes the SNR.
For a gold XRF measurement the best material is osmium. Its SNR is only slightly better than the one for iridium but its observation angle of θ=93° will enhance the SNR even more. The toxicity of osmium might be an argument for the use of iridium.
The following Table 2 shows the expected increase from the existing measurement which was done with Emax=200 keV with a filter of 150 μm Au+2 mm Cu+2 mm Al.
The following issues should also be considered:
as the formulas for the noise and the signal are based on proportionality, the value of the calculated SNR does represent the true SNR with a factor of proportionality. Nevertheless, the values can be used to compare the different conditions (filter material, filter thickness, tube voltage) and to obtain the optimal filter thickness.
The energy resolution of the used X-ray detector system smears the steep theoretical K-edge into the noise interval. Therefore, it is necessary to shift the K-edge to even lower energies in order to position the full XRF peak in a low background environment.
The filter fluorescence lines can be close to the XRF lines of the target. This case can be avoided by using a different selection for the filter material and the observation angle.
Multiple incoherent scattering can shift:
1. Flux from the left side of the unscattered K-edge position to the right side of the single scattered K-edge position by multiple times forward scattering. Example: two times 45° scattering looses less energy than one times 90° scattering, see Table 3 below, corresponding to the case of twofold scattering of Hg K-edge (83.1 keV) X-ray into θ=90°).
2. Flux from the right side of the unscattered K-edge position into the region of the XLF (still the right side of the single scattered K-edge) by a combination of forward and backward scattering.
The filter material can be a compound of two element (one high-Z, one low-Z) in order to make it better for handling; example: use HgS to make a Hg-filter.
The filter can be made of two materials (both high-Z) in order to optimize the detection of two different XRF lines; for example Kα and Kβ.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
17290157 | Dec 2017 | EP | regional |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
20120307962 | Cho et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130010927 | Seppi et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20160252471 | Guo et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20170245819 | Rothschild et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2 078 537 | Jul 2009 | EP |
Entry |
---|
Cheng et al., “Chemical enhancement by nanomaterials under x-ray irradiation”, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 134(4), pp. 1950-1953, 2012. |
Hernandez, et al., “Tungsten anode spectral model using interpolating cubic splines: Unfiltered x-ray spectra from 20 kV to 640 kV”, Medical Physics, vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 042101-1-15, Apr. 2014. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20190175948 A1 | Jun 2019 | US |