This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ramírez-Jiménez, F J Articles by Pacheco-Sotelo, J O Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ramírez-Jiménez, F J Articles by Pacheco-Sotelo, J O

Considerations on the measurement of practical peak voltage in diagnostic radiology

Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares, Direcciones de Servicios Tecnológicos e Investigación Científica, Apartado Postal 18-1027, Colonia Escandón, C.P. 11801, México D.F., México and Instituto Tecnológico de Toluca, Departamento de Electrónica, Apartado Postal 890, Toluca, México

An evaluation of the non-invasive measurement of the practical peak voltage (PPV) in the quality control of X-ray units used in diagnostic radiology was carried out. Two instruments were employed: the PTW Diavolt Universal Tester with readings in PPV and the Waveform Tester for X-rays (WATEX) prototype proposed here, which uses a PIN structure (P-type diffusion, Intrinsic region, N-type diffusion) photodiode as a sensor. The reference for the measurements was the voltage signal obtained in an oscilloscope from an invasive high voltage divider in order to verify the accuracy and precision of the measurements. The readings of the PPV in the Diavolt show a systematic error between 1% and 8%, always being less than the real value. An explanation for this difference is proposed, based on the relation between the effect of the X-rays in the film and the response of the sensor to the product of the applied voltage to the X-ray tube (peak voltage kVp), and the anode current. This explanation was confirmed using the WATEX waveform tester.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H-M KRAMER and H-J SELBACH Extension of the range of definition of the practical peak voltage up to 300 kV Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2008; 81(969): 693 - 698. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]