Paper detail

On the nuclear halo of a proton pencil beam stopping in water

The dose distribution of a pencil beam in water consists of a core, a halo, an aura and (possibly) spray. The core is due to primary protons which suffer multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) and slow down by multiple collisions with atomic electrons (Bethe-Bloch theory). The halo is due to charged secondaries, many of them protons, from elastic interactions with H, elastic and inelastic interactions with O, and nonelastic interactions with O. We show that the halo radius is roughly one third of the beam range. The aura is due to neutral secondaries (neutrons and gamma rays). Spray denotes dose, avoidable in principle, coming in from the beam line. We have measured the absolute dose at 177 MeV using a test beam in a water tank. The beam monitor was a PPIC 'proton counter' and the field IC a dose calibrated Exradin T1. We took depth-dose scans at ten displacements from the beam axis ranging from 0 to 10 cm. The dose spans five orders of magnitude, and the transition from halo to aura is obvious. We present model-dependent (MD) and model-independent (MI) fits to these data. The MD fit has 25 parameters, and the goodness of fit (rms (measurement/fit) - 1) is 15%. The MI fit uses cubic spline fits in depth and radius. The goodness of fit is 9%. This fit is more portable and conceptually simpler. We discuss the prevalent parameterization of the core/halo originated by the PSI group. We argue that its use of T(w), a mass stopping power which includes energy deposited by nuclear secondaries, is incorrect. The electromagnetic (Bethe-Bloch) mass stopping power should be used instead. In consequence, 'Bragg peak chamber' measurements and associated corrections are, in our view, irrelevant. Furthermore, using T(w) leads to spurious excess dose on the axis of the core around midrange, which may be significant in fields involving relatively few pencil beams.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.