**The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions**

Helmut Paul *Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria* 

### **1. Introduction**

112 Modern Practices in Radiation Therapy

[2] H. W. Patterson, R. H. Thomas, Accelerator Health Physics, Academic Press, INC.

[3] S. L. Lindenbaum, Shielding of high energy accelerator, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 11,

[5] Dietzze G. and Sibert B.R.L., Photon and neutron dose contributions and mean quality

[6] ICRP publication 74, Conversion Coefficients for use in Radiological Protection against

[7] Ji Changsong, Neutron detect experimental method, Atom energy publisher, (1998, in

[8] J. T. Routti, High energy neutron spectroscopy with activation detectors, Incorporating

[9] Li Guisheng, et.al., Experimental verification of a new threshold detector and neutron

[10] M. Imamura,S. Shibata,Y. Uwamino et a1.JAERI TIARA Annual Report, April

[13] T. Nakamura et.al., the 4th International Meetings of SATIF, ORNL, Knoxville, USA,

[14] T. Kurosawa, et.al., Measurements of Secondary Neutrons Produced from Thick Targets

[16] Konstanze Gunzert-Marx\_, Dieter Schardt and Reinhard S. Simon, Fast neutrons

[18] Agosteo, S., Campi, F., and Caresana, Double-differential spectra of secondary particles from hadrons on tissue equivalent targets, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 132 (1), 29-41. [19] H. Iwase1, et.al., Experimental and theoretical study of the neutron dose produced by

Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2004), Vol. 110, Nos 1-4, pp. 595---600 [17] D. Schardt, H. Iwase, R. S. Simon and K. Gunzert-Marx, "Experimental investigation of

Bombarded by High-Energy Helium and Carbon Ions Nucl. Sci. Eng. 132, 30(1999).

produced by nuclear fragmentation in treatment irradiations with 12C beam

secondary fast neutrons produced in carbon ion radiotherapy," in Proc. of the International Workshop on Fast Neutron Detectors and Applications, 3-6 April

carbon therapy beam, Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2007), Vol. 126, No. 1–4,

[11] Birattari C, Ferrrari A, Nuccetelli C, et al. Nucl Inst and Meth, 1990, A297:250.

[15] T. Kurosawa et.al., Journal of Nucl. Sci. Tech., Vol.36, No.1, 41 (1999 ).

factors in phantoms of different size irradiated by monoerergetic neutrons. Radia.

new methods for the analysis of Ge(Li)gamma-ray spectra and the solution of Fredholm integral equations (Ph. D. thesis), Lawrence Radiation Laboratory report

measurement in heavy ion target area, Nuclear techniques, Vol 26,No.11( 2003, in

1973.

213(1961)

Chinese).

Chinese).

Sep., (1998).

pp. 615–618

Res., 140, 130-133.

External Radiation, (1997).

UCRL-18514. 1969, 4.

1994'—March l995.

[12] T.Kurosawa et.al., Phys.Rev. C62, 044615 (2000).

2006, 7566 University of Cape

[4] ICRP publication 60 recommendation of the ICRP, 1990.

When a fast positive ion travels through matter, it excites and ionizes atomic electrons, losing energy. For a quantitative understanding of radiotherapy by means of positive ions, it is necessary to know the energy loss per unit distance of matter transversed, *S*, which is alternatively called stopping power or stopping force or linear energy transfer (LET)1. To avoid a trivial dependence of the linear stopping power *S* upon the density ρ, one often uses the mass stopping power S/ρ instead. In the following, we discuss experimental and theoretical stopping power data. Using our large collection2 (Paul, 2011a) of experimental stopping data for ions from 1H to 92U, the reliability of various stopping theories and stopping tables is estimated by comparing them statistically to these data. We consider here only the electronic (not the "nuclear") energy loss of ions in charge equilibrium.

We treat both gaseous and condensed targets (i.e., targets gaseous or condensed at normal temperature and pressure), and we treat them separately. Solid targets are assumed to be amorphous or polycrystalline. We treat elements, compounds and mixtures.

#### **1.1 Tables and programs**

The tables and computer programs used here are listed in Table 1. Program PASS (on which the tables in ICRU Report 73 are based) and the program by Lindhard and Sørensen (1996) (LS) are based on first principles only. The same is true for CasP (Grande & Schiwietz, 2004) and HISTOP (Arista & Lifshitz, 2004), except that they use empirical values (Schiwietz& Grande, 2001) for the ionic charge. The programs by Janni, by Hubert et al. and by Ziegler, and the program MSTAR are semi-empirical. Program LET is not further considered here since it is not independent, but based on Ziegler's programs.

To represent stopping for heavy ions at the highest energies correctly, it is necessary to use the non-perturbational LS theory which is fully relativistic and, in addition, assumes

<sup>1</sup> While "stopping power" considers the energy reducing force of the material, the term "linear energy transfer (LET)" aims at the energy transferred to the surroundings by secondary electrons. If the energy transferred is restricted to electron energies below a certain threshold, this is then the "restricted linear energy transfer".

<sup>2</sup> See the "matrix" in (Paul, 2001a) for the availability of stopping data for various ions and targets.

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 115

projectile nuclei of finite size. For convenience, we have employed the program ATIMA (Geissel, Scheidenberger, et al., 2011) which is based on the LS program above 30 MeV/u and which includes shell, Barkas and Fermi-density effect corrections and in addition, a correction for projectile mean charge. But the use of the LS program will hardly be necessary for radiation therapy, since even for oxygen ions at 690 MeV/u, there is no difference

At high (but not too high) energies, where the ion has lost all electrons, the stopping power can be calculated by the relativistic Bethe theory without corrections (Bethe, 1932; ICRU

/ (0.307075MeVcm ) ( ) *Z Z <sup>S</sup> g L <sup>A</sup>*

where *Z1* and *v* are charge number and velocity of the ion; *Z2* and *A2* are charge number and mass number of the target; *β* = *v/c* (*c* = speed of light); and the stopping number *L* is given by

where *m* is the rest mass of the electron, and *I* is the mean ionization energy of the target. In this simple case, *I* is the only non-trivial constant that describes the stopping power. It can be deduced from optical or from stopping data. An earlier claim (Smith et al., 2006) that the results of these two methods may be in conflict, has been disproved (Paul et al., 2009a).

Lists of mean ionization energies *I* can be found in ICRU Report 49. The high energy parts of the stopping tables in this report were calculated using program BEST (Berger & Bichsel 1994). This program is also useful to calculate the stopping power eq. (1); normally, it uses the same *I* values as ICRU 49, but it also permits to enter a different value. BEST also includes the shell, Barkas, Bloch and Fermi-density effect corrections (see ICRU 49) not shown in eq. (2). It assumes a bare nucleus and is therefore not useful below about 1

At lower energies, the ion will carry electrons, and equilibrium between capture and loss of electrons will develop, leading to a certain mean charge of the ion, lower than *Z1e*. Also, the

For a mixture or, assuming Bragg's additivity rule (Bragg & Kleeman, 1905), for a compound, the mass stopping power is obtained by a linear combination of the constituent

> *j j j*

*S S w*

where wj is the fraction by weight, and (*S/ρ*)*j* is the mass stopping power of the jth

constituent. The corresponding relation for the mean ionization energy is

<sup>2</sup> ( ) ln (1 ) *mv <sup>L</sup> I*

Bethe eq. (1) must then be extended by the corrections mentioned.

2

2

2 2 1 1 2 2 2

2

 (2)

(3)

(1)

between LS theory and Bethe theory (eq. 1) (Scheidenberger et al. 1994).

Report 49):

MeV/nucleon.

**1.2 Mixtures and compounds** 

stopping powers (ICRU Report 49):


Table 1. Tables and computer programs for the stopping power of positive ions. "u" is the unified atomic mass unit, also called dalton.

<sup>3</sup> Below 10 MeV/u, the values are based on an old version of SRIM (Ziegler et al., 1985). Between 10 and 30 MeV/u, the values are interpolated between SRIM and LS.

<sup>4</sup> Additional compounds may be calculated by entering a chemical formula

<sup>5</sup> Compounds are calculated according to chemical formula, assuming Bragg additivity.

<sup>6</sup> Target and projectile ionization must be calculated separately, and added.

<sup>7</sup> At high energy, the ICRU table was calculated using BEST

<sup>8</sup> SRIM was called TRIM in earlier times

range

used here)

0.0001 – 200 MeV/u

many 6 0.01 – 30 MeV/u HISTOP for the valence

(p);

0.001-10000 MeV

0.025 – 1000 MeV/u

MeV/u

MeV/u

0.00025 – 250 MeV/u

0.001-1000 MeV (α)

0.001 – 10000 MeV

Remarks

MeV/u

≥ 0.5 MeV/u Bethe theory with

Based3 on Lindhard-Sørensen above 30

corrections; bare ions

Default settings used here for target ionization6

electrons, SCA for the K

Programs NIST PSTAR,

shell of carbon

NIST ASTAR

Based on PASS

Based on Ziegler's TRIM/SRIM programs

(before 1999)

ASTAR

1.1 eV – 10 GeV/u SRIM stopping was not

0.1 – 100000 keV/u First program to treat

Based on alpha stopping powers of

Binary Theory. Used for ICRU 73

changed since 2003

all ions, all targets

Z1 Z2 (Specific) energy

1 - 92 1 – 92 ≥10 MeV/u (as

2 - 103 36 solid elements 2.5 – 500 MeV/u

compounds4

compound5

compounds or mixtures

compounds

compounds

compounds or mixtures

compounds

1 – 92 19 materials 0.2 – 1000000

many many Above 0.025

Table 1. Tables and computer programs for the stopping power of positive ions. "u" is the

3 Below 10 MeV/u, the values are based on an old version of SRIM (Ziegler et al., 1985). Between 10 and

1 - 92 1 – 92; 180

1 - 92 1 – 92, any

1, 2 25 elements, 48

3 – 18, 26 25 elements, 31

3 - 18 31 elements, 48

1 – 92 1 – 92, many

unified atomic mass unit, also called dalton.

8 SRIM was called TRIM in earlier times

30 MeV/u, the values are interpolated between SRIM and LS.

7 At high energy, the ICRU table was calculated using BEST

1 - 92 1 – 92; many other targets

4 Additional compounds may be calculated by entering a chemical formula

6 Target and projectile ionization must be calculated separately, and added.

5 Compounds are calculated according to chemical formula, assuming Bragg additivity.

Janni (1982) 1 1 – 92; 63

Name, reference

ATIMA (Geissel et al., 2011)

BEST (Berger, Bichsel, 1994)

CasP v. 5.0 (Grande & Schiwietz, 2004)

HISTOP (Arista and Lifshitz, 2004)

Hubert et al. (1990)

ICRU Report 497 (1993)

ICRU Report 73 (2005)

LET (Zajic et al. (1999), Zajic (2001)

MSTAR (Paul,

2003)

PASS (Sigmund & Schinner, 2002)

SRIM8 2003 (Ziegler, 2004)

Ziegler et al. (1985)

projectile nuclei of finite size. For convenience, we have employed the program ATIMA (Geissel, Scheidenberger, et al., 2011) which is based on the LS program above 30 MeV/u and which includes shell, Barkas and Fermi-density effect corrections and in addition, a correction for projectile mean charge. But the use of the LS program will hardly be necessary for radiation therapy, since even for oxygen ions at 690 MeV/u, there is no difference between LS theory and Bethe theory (eq. 1) (Scheidenberger et al. 1994).

At high (but not too high) energies, where the ion has lost all electrons, the stopping power can be calculated by the relativistic Bethe theory without corrections (Bethe, 1932; ICRU Report 49):

$$\text{L'} \text{ } \rho = (0.307075 \text{MeV} \text{cm}^2 \text{g}^{-1}) \frac{Z\_1^2}{\rho^2} \frac{Z\_2}{A\_2} \text{L(}\beta\text{)}\tag{1}$$

where *Z1* and *v* are charge number and velocity of the ion; *Z2* and *A2* are charge number and mass number of the target; *β* = *v/c* (*c* = speed of light); and the stopping number *L* is given by

$$\ln L(\beta) = \ln \frac{2mv^2}{l(1-\beta^2)} - \beta^2 \tag{2}$$

where *m* is the rest mass of the electron, and *I* is the mean ionization energy of the target. In this simple case, *I* is the only non-trivial constant that describes the stopping power. It can be deduced from optical or from stopping data. An earlier claim (Smith et al., 2006) that the results of these two methods may be in conflict, has been disproved (Paul et al., 2009a).

Lists of mean ionization energies *I* can be found in ICRU Report 49. The high energy parts of the stopping tables in this report were calculated using program BEST (Berger & Bichsel 1994). This program is also useful to calculate the stopping power eq. (1); normally, it uses the same *I* values as ICRU 49, but it also permits to enter a different value. BEST also includes the shell, Barkas, Bloch and Fermi-density effect corrections (see ICRU 49) not shown in eq. (2). It assumes a bare nucleus and is therefore not useful below about 1 MeV/nucleon.

At lower energies, the ion will carry electrons, and equilibrium between capture and loss of electrons will develop, leading to a certain mean charge of the ion, lower than *Z1e*. Also, the Bethe eq. (1) must then be extended by the corrections mentioned.

#### **1.2 Mixtures and compounds**

For a mixture or, assuming Bragg's additivity rule (Bragg & Kleeman, 1905), for a compound, the mass stopping power is obtained by a linear combination of the constituent stopping powers (ICRU Report 49):

$$\frac{S}{\rho} = \sum\_{j} w\_{j} \left( \frac{S}{\rho} \right)\_{j} \tag{3}$$

where wj is the fraction by weight, and (*S/ρ*)*j* is the mass stopping power of the jth constituent. The corresponding relation for the mean ionization energy is

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 117

The averages are unweighted, except that obviously discrepant data are rejected (Paul, 2011a). A small Δ usually signifies good agreement between table and experimental data; in such a case, σ is related to the mean experimental accuracy, and σ may be taken as a

In Tables 2 and 3, the reliability of various stopping power tables for H and He ions in solid elements is given in terms of Δ ± σ. Here, *E* is the energy of the ion. These tables were originally published by Paul & Schinner (2005), but many new data have since been added.

*E/A1* (MeV) 0.01-0.1 0.1 – 1 1 – 10 10 - 100 0.01 -100 *Number of points 1357 2492 1212 225 5286*  Janni, 1982 2.1 ± 11 -1.1 ± 7.1 -0.9 ± 3.6 -0.3 ± 0.5 -0.2 ± 7.7 Ziegler et al., 1985 -1.3 11 -3.1 7.8 -0.4 4.2 0.4 2.2 -1.9 8.2 ICRU, 1993 0.8 11 -0.7 7.0 -0.3 4.0 -0.1 0.5 -0.2 7.5 SRIM, 2003 0.6 10.3 -0.9 6.7 -0.6 3.7 -0.2 0.6 -0.4 7.2

Table 2. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for H ions in 17 solid elements covered by

Table 3. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for He ions in 16 solid elements covered

One can see that σ always decreases with increasing energy, due to the higher accuracy of measurements at high energy. The numbers of experimental points averaged is also shown, to give an idea of the accuracy. To provide a fair comparison with the smaller number of targets in the ICRU table, we compare only with the targets of that table, even though we have many more targets in our files (Paul, 2011a). We see that generally, σ has decreased and hence, the overall agreement has improved in time, with the exception of (Ziegler et al.,

Table 4 gives results for H ions in elemental gases. Here, we exclude measurements for low energy H ions in helium (Golser & Semrad, 1991; Schiefermüller et al., 1993; Raiola et al., 2001). Due to the threshold effect (Fermi & Teller, 1947) these data would produce a very

1985); but this was the first table capable of treating all ions and all targets.

*E/A1* (MeV) 0.01-0.1 0.1 – 1 1 – 10 10 - 100 0.01 -100 *Number of points 1036 1913 400 11 3360*  Ziegler et al., 1985 3.2 8.7 0.6 5.6 -0.8 3.3 0.8 2.4 1.2 6.7 ICRU, 1993 2.6 8.3 0.2 5.6 0.1 3.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 6.4 SRIM, 2003 3.5 8.2 0.6 5.2 -0.3 3.1 0.2 0.9 1.4 6.3

measure of the accuracy of the table, as determined from experiment.

This has not changed the results much, but it adds to the reliability.

 

2 2

  (8)

and its standard deviation

**2. Hydrogen and helium ions** 

**2.1 Hydrogen and helium ions in elements** 

the ICRU Table, compared to various tables.

by the ICRU Table.

$$\ln I = \left(\sum w\_j \frac{Z\_{2j}}{A\_{2j}} \ln I\_j \right) \left\langle \left\langle \frac{Z\_2}{A\_2} \right\rangle \right. \tag{4}$$

where

$$
\left\langle \frac{Z\_2}{A\_2} \right\rangle = \sum w\_j \frac{Z\_{2j}}{A\_{2j}}.\tag{5}
$$

A list of mean ionization energies *I* and other properties for 48 compounds and mixtures of interest to particle therapy can also be found in ICRU Report 49. To calculate the stopping power, *I* values different from those in the main list for elements were used, in an attempt to correct for the influence of binding and phase effects (see Table 2.11 of ICRU Report 49).

Some of the *I*-values in ICRU 49 are probably outdated, and a commission of the ICRU is working to improve the values for water and graphite. Comparisons with newer values of ionization energies are shown by Paul and Berger (1995), and by Paul et al. (2007a). The particular case of water is discussed in sect. 5 below.

BEST will also calculate the stopping of any compound defined by a chemical formula, and in particular, for 180 numbered compounds and mixtures9 identified by three-digit ID numbers.

The file compound.dat in the SRIM program contains information for many compounds, including those covered by ICRU Report 49. Compound.dat also includes corrections for a deviation10 from Bragg additivity (Ziegler & Manoyan, 1988) that becomes noticeable below 1 MeV/nucleon. In addition, it contains instructions on how to add more compounds to the SRIM program. To produce the data in table 6 below, we have added the properties of many compounds contained in our data base. Properties of compounds are also given by Janni (1988), and by Moyers et al. (2010).

#### **1.3 Statistical comparisons**

For statistical comparisons between experimental data and tables, we use our program ''Judge", v. 3.19 (Paul & Schinner, 2001). This program calculates the normalized differences

$$\mathcal{S} = \left(\mathcal{S}\_{ex} - \mathcal{S}\_{tab}\right) / \mathcal{S}\_{ex} \tag{6}$$

for every data point. Here, *Sex* is the experimental value, and *Stab* the corresponding table value for the same ion, same target and same energy. In every range of specific energy, i.e., energy per nucleon, it then determines the average normalized difference:

$$
\Delta = \left\langle \mathcal{S} \right\rangle \tag{7}
$$

<sup>9</sup> For only 48 of these, where experimental low-energy stopping data were available, stopping tables are given in ICRU Report 49. The properties of all the 180 substances can be found in program NIST ESTAR for electron stopping powers.

<sup>10</sup> These corrections are only applied for H and He ions. The absolute values of the non-zero Bragg corrections amount to about 3 %, on the average (Paul & Schinner, 2006). An attempt to test the accuracy of those corrections statistically is shown in the same paper.

and its standard deviation

116 Modern Practices in Radiation Therapy

*j j j j <sup>Z</sup> <sup>Z</sup> Iw I*

> 2 2 2 2

A list of mean ionization energies *I* and other properties for 48 compounds and mixtures of interest to particle therapy can also be found in ICRU Report 49. To calculate the stopping power, *I* values different from those in the main list for elements were used, in an attempt to correct for the influence of binding and phase effects (see Table 2.11 of ICRU Report 49).

Some of the *I*-values in ICRU 49 are probably outdated, and a commission of the ICRU is working to improve the values for water and graphite. Comparisons with newer values of ionization energies are shown by Paul and Berger (1995), and by Paul et al. (2007a). The

BEST will also calculate the stopping of any compound defined by a chemical formula, and in particular, for 180 numbered compounds and mixtures9 identified by three-digit ID numbers. The file compound.dat in the SRIM program contains information for many compounds, including those covered by ICRU Report 49. Compound.dat also includes corrections for a deviation10 from Bragg additivity (Ziegler & Manoyan, 1988) that becomes noticeable below 1 MeV/nucleon. In addition, it contains instructions on how to add more compounds to the SRIM program. To produce the data in table 6 below, we have added the properties of many compounds contained in our data base. Properties of compounds are also given by Janni

For statistical comparisons between experimental data and tables, we use our program ''Judge", v. 3.19 (Paul & Schinner, 2001). This program calculates the normalized differences

( )/ *SS S ex tab ex*

for every data point. Here, *Sex* is the experimental value, and *Stab* the corresponding table value for the same ion, same target and same energy. In every range of specific energy, i.e.,

> 

9 For only 48 of these, where experimental low-energy stopping data were available, stopping tables are given in ICRU Report 49. The properties of all the 180 substances can be found in program NIST ESTAR

10 These corrections are only applied for H and He ions. The absolute values of the non-zero Bragg corrections amount to about 3 %, on the average (Paul & Schinner, 2006). An attempt to test the

energy per nucleon, it then determines the average normalized difference:

accuracy of those corrections statistically is shown in the same paper.

particular case of water is discussed in sect. 5 below.

(1988), and by Moyers et al. (2010).

**1.3 Statistical comparisons** 

for electron stopping powers.

*Z Z w*

 

ln ln

where

2 2 2 2

> *j j j*

(4)

*A A* . (5)

(6)

(7)

*A A*

$$
\sigma = \sqrt{\left< \delta^2 \right> - \left< \delta \right>^2} \tag{8}
$$

The averages are unweighted, except that obviously discrepant data are rejected (Paul, 2011a). A small Δ usually signifies good agreement between table and experimental data; in such a case, σ is related to the mean experimental accuracy, and σ may be taken as a measure of the accuracy of the table, as determined from experiment.

#### **2. Hydrogen and helium ions**

#### **2.1 Hydrogen and helium ions in elements**

In Tables 2 and 3, the reliability of various stopping power tables for H and He ions in solid elements is given in terms of Δ ± σ. Here, *E* is the energy of the ion. These tables were originally published by Paul & Schinner (2005), but many new data have since been added. This has not changed the results much, but it adds to the reliability.


Table 2. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for H ions in 17 solid elements covered by the ICRU Table, compared to various tables.


Table 3. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for He ions in 16 solid elements covered by the ICRU Table.

One can see that σ always decreases with increasing energy, due to the higher accuracy of measurements at high energy. The numbers of experimental points averaged is also shown, to give an idea of the accuracy. To provide a fair comparison with the smaller number of targets in the ICRU table, we compare only with the targets of that table, even though we have many more targets in our files (Paul, 2011a). We see that generally, σ has decreased and hence, the overall agreement has improved in time, with the exception of (Ziegler et al., 1985); but this was the first table capable of treating all ions and all targets.

Table 4 gives results for H ions in elemental gases. Here, we exclude measurements for low energy H ions in helium (Golser & Semrad, 1991; Schiefermüller et al., 1993; Raiola et al., 2001). Due to the threshold effect (Fermi & Teller, 1947) these data would produce a very

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 119

Table 7 shows a comparison between SRIM 2003 and ICRU Report 49, for the smaller number of compounds covered by the latter table, for H and He ions together (Paul & Schinner, 2006).

*E/A1* (MeV) 0 – 0.03 0.03 – 0.3 0.3 – 3.0 3 – 30 0 – 30 *Number of points 116 1036 1237 135 2524*  ICRU, 1993 0.2 8.9 1.4 5.9 1.3 5.2 1.0 4.4 1.3 5.7 SRIM, 2003 -7.8 12 -1.0 6.4 0.4 5.6 -0.6 4.0 -0.6 6.6

Table 7. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for H and He ions in 23 (solid or gaseous)

Moyers et al. (2010) have recently measured the linear stopping powers for protons at 135, 175, and 225 MeV in many compounds of interest to particle therapy, relative to a water target. They compared their results to the Janni (1988) or LET tables (Zajic, 2001), finding agreement within 1 to 3 %. As examples, Fig. 1 shows a few results by Moyers et al., compared to the Janni, BEST and SRIM tables. The BEST calculation uses the *I*-values of ICRU Report 49, except that *I* = 78 eV was taken for water (cf. Sect. 5 below). It should be noted that in this energy region, corrections to eq. (2) are small12, hence eq. (2) would also

Fig. 1. The linear stopping power of Al, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), clear polystyrene (CLPS) and high density polyethylene (HDPE), for protons relative to water, compared to the tables Janni, BEST, and SRIM. The 3-digit ID numbers from ICRU 49 are shown in parentheses. For the curves, the *I* values for both substances are shown in parentheses, where available.

Experimental data are from Moyers et al. (2010) and Moyers (2011).

12 In the case of p in Al, e.g., corrections are below 0.2 %.

For this restricted number of targets, ICRU Report 49 is clearly better than SRIM.

compounds covered by ICRU Report 49 (1993)

suffice in place of BEST.


large Δ and thus obscure any other discrepancy. Except for the tables by Ziegler et al. (1985) (due to large discrepancies for H and He targets), the gas measurements appear here more reliable than those on solids.

Table 4. Mean normalized difference Δ σ (in %) for H ions in all elemental gases except F, Cl, Rn

Table 5 shows results for He ions in elemental gases. Again, the agreement with the data is much better than for solids, and we can observe a gradual improvement in time.


Table 5. Mean normalized difference Δ σ (in %) for He ions in all elemental gases except F, Cl, Rn

#### **2.2 Hydrogen and helium ions in compounds**

Data for compounds have been treated in (Paul & Schinner, 2006). In our data base (Paul, 2011a), we have data for 150 different compounds. Table 6 shows results for hydrogen and helium ions in these compounds, compared to SRIM. Because of the different low energy limit chosen11, some of the results appear somewhat better than for elements. Again, the errors σ tend to be smaller for gases than for solids.


Table 6. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for H and He ions in condensed or gaseous compounds, as compared to SRIM (2003).

11 This is to avoid large deviations due to the threshold effect in LiF (Markin et al., 2009)

large Δ and thus obscure any other discrepancy. Except for the tables by Ziegler et al. (1985) (due to large discrepancies for H and He targets), the gas measurements appear here more

*E/A1* (MeV) 0.001 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.1 0.1 - 1.0 1 - 10 10 - 100 0.001 - 100 *No. of points 124 335 535 303 11 1308*  Janni, 1982 -0.9 9.2 -0.0 4.6 0.5 3.9 0.9 3.2 3.2 0.6 0.4 4.7

<sup>1985</sup>22 14 22 11 0.4 6.8 -1.1 1.7 -1.0 0.5 7.7 <sup>14</sup> ICRU, 1993 -0.6 6.7 -1.2 5.0 -1.2 3.7 -0.8 1.6 -0.2 0.5 -1.0 4.1 SRIM, 2003 2.1 5.2 -0.1 4.7 -0.4 3.6 -0.2 1.6 0.2 0.3 -0.1 3.9 Table 4. Mean normalized difference Δ σ (in %) for H ions in all elemental gases except F,

Table 5 shows results for He ions in elemental gases. Again, the agreement with the data is

E/A1 (MeV) 0.001 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.1 0.1 - 1.0 1 – 10 0 - 10 *No. of points 5 267 863 238 1373*  Ziegler et al., 1985 7.2 13 2.5 5.9 3.0 4.9 -0.5 2.5 2.3 5.0 ICRU, 1993 0.5 6.8 -1.0 4.2 0.1 4.2 0.7 2.3 0.0 4.0 SRIM, 2003 -5.4 6.1 0.3 3.9 0.1 3.8 -0.2 2.2 0.1 3.7 Table 5. Mean normalized difference Δ σ (in %) for He ions in all elemental gases except F,

Data for compounds have been treated in (Paul & Schinner, 2006). In our data base (Paul, 2011a), we have data for 150 different compounds. Table 6 shows results for hydrogen and helium ions in these compounds, compared to SRIM. Because of the different low energy limit chosen11, some of the results appear somewhat better than for elements. Again, the

Ions Targets E/A1 (MeV) 0.025-0.25 0.25 – 2.5 2.5 - 30 0.025 – 30

Table 6. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for H and He ions in condensed or

11 This is to avoid large deviations due to the threshold effect in LiF (Markin et al., 2009)

cond. *No. of points 412 946 232 1590* 

gas *No. of points 508 378 24 910* 

cond. *No. of points 472 1460 14 1946* 

gas *No. of points 997 1742 0 2739* 

Δ ± σ -1.3 ± 8.2 1.4 ± 6.3 -0.1 ± 4.0 0.5 ± 6.7

Δ ± σ -0.9 ± 4.3 0.1 ± 3.3 -0.9 ± 2.1 -0.5 ± 3.9

Δ ± σ 0.4 ± 6.8 -0.5 ± 4.3 -2.0 ± 3.1 -0.3 ± 5.1

Δ ± σ -2.6 ± 7.2 1.1 ± 2.9 -0.3 ± 5.2

much better than for solids, and we can observe a gradual improvement in time.

**2.2 Hydrogen and helium ions in compounds** 

errors σ tend to be smaller for gases than for solids.

gaseous compounds, as compared to SRIM (2003).

reliable than those on solids.

Ziegler et al.,

Cl, Rn

Cl, Rn

H

He


Table 7 shows a comparison between SRIM 2003 and ICRU Report 49, for the smaller number of compounds covered by the latter table, for H and He ions together (Paul & Schinner, 2006). For this restricted number of targets, ICRU Report 49 is clearly better than SRIM.

Table 7. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for H and He ions in 23 (solid or gaseous) compounds covered by ICRU Report 49 (1993)

Moyers et al. (2010) have recently measured the linear stopping powers for protons at 135, 175, and 225 MeV in many compounds of interest to particle therapy, relative to a water target. They compared their results to the Janni (1988) or LET tables (Zajic, 2001), finding agreement within 1 to 3 %. As examples, Fig. 1 shows a few results by Moyers et al., compared to the Janni, BEST and SRIM tables. The BEST calculation uses the *I*-values of ICRU Report 49, except that *I* = 78 eV was taken for water (cf. Sect. 5 below). It should be noted that in this energy region, corrections to eq. (2) are small12, hence eq. (2) would also suffice in place of BEST.

Fig. 1. The linear stopping power of Al, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), clear polystyrene (CLPS) and high density polyethylene (HDPE), for protons relative to water, compared to the tables Janni, BEST, and SRIM. The 3-digit ID numbers from ICRU 49 are shown in parentheses. For the curves, the *I* values for both substances are shown in parentheses, where available. Experimental data are from Moyers et al. (2010) and Moyers (2011).

<sup>12</sup> In the case of p in Al, e.g., corrections are below 0.2 %.

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 121

*E/A1* (MeV) 0.025 – 0.1 0.1 – 1 1- 10 10 - 100 0.025-100 *No. of points 180 775 554 16 1525*  MSTAR 4.8 ± 10.1 0.8 ± 6.4 5.4 ± 4.3 0.8 ± 2.4 3.0 ± 6.7 SRIM, 2003 -2.2 ± 9.4 -0.5 ± 6.0 0.1 ± 5.0 -1.5 ± 2.5 -0.5 ± 6.2 ICRU Rep. 73 -11 ± 11 -2.6 ± 7.4 -1.1 ± 5.0 -0.8 ± 1.7 -3.1 ± 7.9 Table 9. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in 10 condensed compounds14. The number of points refers to MSTAR and SRIM; for ICRU 73, it is slightly

*E/A1* (MeV) 0.025 – 0.1 0.1 – 1 1- 10 10 - 100 0.025-100 *No. of points 163 190 574 189 1116*  MSTAR -2.5 ± 10.4 -2.1 ± 12 0.1 ± 3.8 0.7 ± 2.4 -0.5 ± 7.2 SRIM, 2003 3.2 ± 10.1 -7.6 ± 12 -1.0 ± 5.9 -2.2 ± 3.9 -1.7 ± 8.2 ICRU Rep. 73 -50 ± 28 -3.1 ± 16 -1.9 ± 10.3 -0.1 ± 3.8 -8.8 ± 23 Table 10. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in all (elemental

Fig. 2. Electronic stopping power as a function of specific energy for Li ions in Ag, compared to various tables. Experimental points are marked by letters; the references corresponding to

CasP is too low at low energy. Table 10 shows that the overall agreement is here not better for gases than for solids. The agreement of ICRU 73 with the data for gases at low energy is noticeably worse than for solids. This could be related to the fact that PASS uses the same

14 Aluminum oxide, kapton polyimide, polycarbonate (makrolon), polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate (mylar), polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, silicon dioxide, toluene, water (liquid)

the reference codes given in the margin can be found in (Paul, 2011a).

ionic charge for gases as for solids.

and compound) gases covered by MSTAR and ICRU 73 for which we have data.

smaller since that table does not cover polypropylene and toluene.

Inspection of Fig. 1 shows that the curves are essentially determined by the *I* values. In particular, the Janni curves are always above the BEST curves because of the rather high *I* value for water and the rather low *I* values for the other substances. Evidently, BEST agrees best with the Al measurements. For the compounds, BEST appears slightly low; this might point to slight errors of the I values used.

#### **2.3 Application to particle therapy**

Inspection of Tables 2 and 4 shows that, for protons in elements, in the range 10 – 100 MeV, the value of Δ is negligible for the ICRU and SRIM tables, and σ is 0.5 %, on the average. Hence, in this energy range important for therapy, the ICRU and SRIM tables can be expected to be accurate to 0.5 %. And the same accuracy may be expected up to 1000 MeV, if the ICRU or SRIM tables are extended13 using the pure Bethe theory eq. (1), since the corrections to Bethe are minimal (cf. Fig. 8 below). The same holds for the Janni table for elemental solids (not for gases).

For protons in compounds, the highest energy range (Table 6) goes only up to 30 MeV, and σ is larger (2 – 4 %). Hence, the predictive quality of SRIM appears worse for compounds. On the other hand, since Bragg additivity holds at high energy, the stopping power of compounds at high energy may be calculated using eq. (3), and in this way, the accuracy could be improved somewhat.

#### **3. Ions from 3Li to 18Ar**

In tables 8 to 10, MSTAR v.3 (Paul, 2003), SRIM (2003), and ICRU Report 73 (2005) are compared to experimental data. To provide a fair comparison between MSTAR and SRIM, we compare both tables to the same data; not all of these are covered by ICRU 73. These comparisons are based upon our earlier analyses (Paul, 2006) but contain many newer data. This has hardly changed the results, but it adds credibility.


Table 8. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in all the elemental solids covered by MSTAR. The number of points refers to MSTAR and SRIM; for ICRU 73, it is slightly smaller since that table does not cover B, Zr, Gd, and Ta targets.

Table 8 shows the reliability of the tables in terms of Δ ± σ for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in solid elements. Similarly, Table 9 gives the reliability of the same tables for the 10 compounds for which we have data. Finally, Table 10 shows results for all gases covered by MSTAR and ICRU Report 73 for which we have data. We find that MSTAR and SRIM describe the data about equally well, and that ICRU 73 is too high at low energy, on the average. Fig. 2 shows an extreme example: the stopping power of Ag for Li ions, where ICRU 73 is too high, and

<sup>13</sup> In the case of ICRU, this simply means using the ICRU table up to 1000 MeV.

Inspection of Fig. 1 shows that the curves are essentially determined by the *I* values. In particular, the Janni curves are always above the BEST curves because of the rather high *I* value for water and the rather low *I* values for the other substances. Evidently, BEST agrees best with the Al measurements. For the compounds, BEST appears slightly low; this might

Inspection of Tables 2 and 4 shows that, for protons in elements, in the range 10 – 100 MeV, the value of Δ is negligible for the ICRU and SRIM tables, and σ is 0.5 %, on the average. Hence, in this energy range important for therapy, the ICRU and SRIM tables can be expected to be accurate to 0.5 %. And the same accuracy may be expected up to 1000 MeV, if the ICRU or SRIM tables are extended13 using the pure Bethe theory eq. (1), since the corrections to Bethe are minimal (cf. Fig. 8 below). The same holds for the Janni table for

For protons in compounds, the highest energy range (Table 6) goes only up to 30 MeV, and σ is larger (2 – 4 %). Hence, the predictive quality of SRIM appears worse for compounds. On the other hand, since Bragg additivity holds at high energy, the stopping power of compounds at high energy may be calculated using eq. (3), and in this way, the accuracy

In tables 8 to 10, MSTAR v.3 (Paul, 2003), SRIM (2003), and ICRU Report 73 (2005) are compared to experimental data. To provide a fair comparison between MSTAR and SRIM, we compare both tables to the same data; not all of these are covered by ICRU 73. These comparisons are based upon our earlier analyses (Paul, 2006) but contain many newer data.

*E/A1* (MeV) 0.025 - 0.1 0.1- 1 1 – 10 10 - 100 100-1000 0.025-

*No. of points 1426 3821 1370 190 11 6818*  MSTAR 2.3 ± 9.6 0.3 ± 6.5 1.1 ± 4.9 0.2 ± 2.1 0.7 ± 1.4 0.9 ± 7.0 SRIM, 2003 1.3 ± 8.8 -0.5 ± 5.8 -0.1 ± 4.8 -1.5 ± 2.8 -0.1 ± 1.6 -0.1 ± 6.4 ICRU Rep. 73 -11.7 ± 20 -6.3 ± 11 -2.9 ± 5.8 -0.9 ± 2.9 -0.8 ± 1.9 -6.6 ± 13

elemental solids covered by MSTAR. The number of points refers to MSTAR and SRIM; for ICRU 73, it is slightly smaller since that table does not cover B, Zr, Gd, and Ta targets.

Table 8 shows the reliability of the tables in terms of Δ ± σ for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in solid elements. Similarly, Table 9 gives the reliability of the same tables for the 10 compounds for which we have data. Finally, Table 10 shows results for all gases covered by MSTAR and ICRU Report 73 for which we have data. We find that MSTAR and SRIM describe the data about equally well, and that ICRU 73 is too high at low energy, on the average. Fig. 2 shows an extreme example: the stopping power of Ag for Li ions, where ICRU 73 is too high, and

Table 8. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in all the

13 In the case of ICRU, this simply means using the ICRU table up to 1000 MeV.

1000

point to slight errors of the I values used.

**2.3 Application to particle therapy** 

elemental solids (not for gases).

could be improved somewhat.

This has hardly changed the results, but it adds credibility.

**3. Ions from 3Li to 18Ar** 


Table 9. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in 10 condensed compounds14. The number of points refers to MSTAR and SRIM; for ICRU 73, it is slightly smaller since that table does not cover polypropylene and toluene.


Table 10. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in all (elemental and compound) gases covered by MSTAR and ICRU 73 for which we have data.

Fig. 2. Electronic stopping power as a function of specific energy for Li ions in Ag, compared to various tables. Experimental points are marked by letters; the references corresponding to the reference codes given in the margin can be found in (Paul, 2011a).

CasP is too low at low energy. Table 10 shows that the overall agreement is here not better for gases than for solids. The agreement of ICRU 73 with the data for gases at low energy is noticeably worse than for solids. This could be related to the fact that PASS uses the same ionic charge for gases as for solids.

<sup>14</sup> Aluminum oxide, kapton polyimide, polycarbonate (makrolon), polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate (mylar), polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, silicon dioxide, toluene, water (liquid)

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 123

In Table 12 (Paul, 2010), the reliability of stopping tables for ions 19K to 92U in elemental solids is given numerically. We find that, at the highest energy, only the non-perturbational Lindhard-Sørensen theory (calculated using ATIMA) is correct. Between 2.5 and 100 MeV/nucleon, the Hubert table is best. SRIM is fairly good everywhere, except near the maximum (2.5 – 30 MeV/n). By detailed analysis, it can be shown, that on the average, for heavy ions in solid elemental targets, SRIM is 6 % high in heavy targets and 5 % low in light targets at the maximum, as has been noted already by Randhawa & Virk (1996). For

Fig. 4. Electronic stopping power as a function of specific energy for U ions in Au. The data points are indicated by letters; corresponding references can be found in (Paul, 2011a).

Fig. 6 (Paul, 2011b) shows the stopping power for U ions at 10 MeV/nucleon in elements, versus target atomic number Z2. One can see the well known positive solid-gas difference due to the high collision frequency of fast ions in solids (Geissel et al., 1982; Paul, 2009b) which is well described by CasP 4.0 (due to the different ionic charge states used by CasP for solids and gases) but not by SRIM17; SRIM is too high for heavy ions in gaseous elements (see Table 13). For gaseous compounds, SRIM is also too high, especially for the heaviest ions at the maximum (see, e.g., the graph for U ions in Butane in (Paul, 2011a)

17 The "Gas Tgt" button in SRIM does, however, describe the *negative* solid-gas difference due to

polarization screening in the solid, found at low energy, see ref. (Paul 2009b).

examples, see the graphs for U in Au (Fig. 4) and for Pb in C (Fig. 5).

**4. Ions from 19K to 92U** 

and Table 14).

#### **3.1 In particular: Carbon ions**

We consider carbon ions especially because of their importance for medical therapy. As an example, Fig. 3 shows stopping powers for carbon ions in carbon. Here, there is good agreement between the experimental data and the MSTAR, SRIM, HISTOP and ICRU 73 tables in most energy regions, while CasP is too low at low energy15.

Table 11 shows the reliability of MSTAR, SRIM and ICRU 73 for C ions in elemental solids. The overall agreement for MSTAR and SRIM is slightly better than in Table 7 for all ions (Li to Ar), but the highest energy range goes only up to 100 MeV/nucleon. Here, the accuracy in the highest range (10 – 100 MeV/nucleon) is only about 3 % for MSTAR and SRIM, much worse than for protons.


Table 11. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for C ions in 15 elemental solids covered by MSTAR. The number of points refers to MSTAR and SRIM; for ICRU 73, it is slightly smaller since that table does not cover Gd and Ta targets.

Fig. 3. Like Fig. 2, for C ions in amorphous carbon16.

<sup>15</sup> This discrepancy has not changed much from CasP v. 3.1 to v. 5.0

<sup>16</sup> The CasP calculation was done using oscillator strengths for carbon, and adding projectile ionization to target ionization.

#### **4. Ions from 19K to 92U**

122 Modern Practices in Radiation Therapy

We consider carbon ions especially because of their importance for medical therapy. As an example, Fig. 3 shows stopping powers for carbon ions in carbon. Here, there is good agreement between the experimental data and the MSTAR, SRIM, HISTOP and ICRU 73

Table 11 shows the reliability of MSTAR, SRIM and ICRU 73 for C ions in elemental solids. The overall agreement for MSTAR and SRIM is slightly better than in Table 7 for all ions (Li to Ar), but the highest energy range goes only up to 100 MeV/nucleon. Here, the accuracy in the highest range (10 – 100 MeV/nucleon) is only about 3 % for MSTAR and SRIM, much

*E/A1* (MeV) 0.025 - 0.1 0.1- 1 1 – 10 10 - 100 0.025-100 *No. of points 202 632 229 8 1071*  MSTAR -1.6 ± 9.6 0.6 ± 5.8 0.9 ± 5.1 0.0 ± 2.8 0.2 ± 6.6 SRIM, 2003 0.4 ± 8.3 -0.5 ± 5.3 -0.6 ± 5.2 1.0 ± 3.0 -0.3 ± 6.0 ICRU Rep. 73 -13.0 ± 12 -9.2 ± 11 -2.6 ± 5.8 -0.6 ± 3.8 -8.5 ± 11 Table 11. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ (in %) for C ions in 15 elemental solids covered by MSTAR. The number of points refers to MSTAR and SRIM; for ICRU 73, it is slightly

tables in most energy regions, while CasP is too low at low energy15.

smaller since that table does not cover Gd and Ta targets.

Fig. 3. Like Fig. 2, for C ions in amorphous carbon16.

15 This discrepancy has not changed much from CasP v. 3.1 to v. 5.0

16 The CasP calculation was done using oscillator strengths for carbon, and adding projectile ionization

to target ionization.

**3.1 In particular: Carbon ions** 

worse than for protons.

In Table 12 (Paul, 2010), the reliability of stopping tables for ions 19K to 92U in elemental solids is given numerically. We find that, at the highest energy, only the non-perturbational Lindhard-Sørensen theory (calculated using ATIMA) is correct. Between 2.5 and 100 MeV/nucleon, the Hubert table is best. SRIM is fairly good everywhere, except near the maximum (2.5 – 30 MeV/n). By detailed analysis, it can be shown, that on the average, for heavy ions in solid elemental targets, SRIM is 6 % high in heavy targets and 5 % low in light targets at the maximum, as has been noted already by Randhawa & Virk (1996). For examples, see the graphs for U in Au (Fig. 4) and for Pb in C (Fig. 5).

Fig. 4. Electronic stopping power as a function of specific energy for U ions in Au. The data points are indicated by letters; corresponding references can be found in (Paul, 2011a).

Fig. 6 (Paul, 2011b) shows the stopping power for U ions at 10 MeV/nucleon in elements, versus target atomic number Z2. One can see the well known positive solid-gas difference due to the high collision frequency of fast ions in solids (Geissel et al., 1982; Paul, 2009b) which is well described by CasP 4.0 (due to the different ionic charge states used by CasP for solids and gases) but not by SRIM17; SRIM is too high for heavy ions in gaseous elements (see Table 13). For gaseous compounds, SRIM is also too high, especially for the heaviest ions at the maximum (see, e.g., the graph for U ions in Butane in (Paul, 2011a) and Table 14).

<sup>17</sup> The "Gas Tgt" button in SRIM does, however, describe the *negative* solid-gas difference due to polarization screening in the solid, found at low energy, see ref. (Paul 2009b).

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 125

Fig. 6. The stopping power of elements for U ions at 10 MeV/nucleon, as a function of target

E/A1 (MeV) 0.025-0.25 0.25 – 2.5 2.5 – 30 30 – 100 Total Range

Table 14. Δ ± σ (in %) for SRIM, for ions from 19K to 92U in all gaseous compounds for which

Table 15 shows a statistical comparison for solid compounds. The deviation between SRIM and experiments is larger than for elements, and SRIM is too low, on the average. An

E/A1 (MeV) 0.025-0.25 0.25-2.5 2.5-30 30-100 Total Range *No. of points 239 211 86 10 546*  SRIM 8.1 ± 12 4.6 ± 9.2 8.5 ± 9.8 5.9 ± 5.8 6.8 ± 10.7

Water as a target is especially important for medical physics. Fig. 7 gives an overview of experimental and tabulated values of the stopping power of solid and liquid water for

Table 15. Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 19K to 92U in all solid compounds (Al2O3, Formvar, Havar, Mylar, NE111 Plastic Scintillator, Polycarbonate, Polyethylene naphthalate, Polypropylene, Polystyrene, SiC, Silicon Nitride, ZrO2) for which we have data in (Paul,

atomic number. The graph shows the well-known positive solid-gas difference.

*No. of points 21 112 195 15 343*  SRIM -1.6 ± 9.5 -4.8 ± 5.3 -9.9 ± 7.7 -0.9 ± 7.3 -7.4 ± 7.8

we have data in (Paul, 2011a): butane, CF4, methane, CO2, and C3F8 (Freon-218).

example is the case for Ni ions in SiC (see the figure in (Paul, 2011a)).

2011a) and which are calculable, compared to SRIM.

**5. Water as a target** 

Fig. 5. Electronic stopping power of carbon for Pb ions, versus specific energy. Measured points are indicated by letters; the corresponding references are found in (Paul, 2011a). The curve designations are explained in Table 1, except for Fet06 (Fettouhi et al.). This curve is based on PASS, but incorporating a realistic mean charge of the ion.


Table 12. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ of experimental data for 31 ions from 19K to 92U in all 54 solid elemental targets for which we have data, in various ranges of specific energy.


Table 13. Δ ± σ (in %) for SRIM, for ions from 19K to 92U in all elemental gas targets for which we have experimental data in (Paul, 2011a).

Fig. 5. Electronic stopping power of carbon for Pb ions, versus specific energy. Measured points are indicated by letters; the corresponding references are found in (Paul, 2011a). The curve designations are explained in Table 1, except for Fet06 (Fettouhi et al.). This curve is

*No. of pts. 655 3025 1058 65 43 13 4859*  SRIM 2.0 ± 19 1.8 ± 6.6 -2.0 ± 9.0 -0.3 ± 3.4 5.0 ± 2.4 7.5 ± 2.2 1.0 ± 9.9 *No of pts. 934 65 43 1042*  Hubert 0.8 ± 5.1 1.1 ± 3.2 4.6 ± 2.5 1.0 ± 5.0 *No. of pts. 65 43 13 121*  ATIMA 2.3 ± 4.0 1.2 ± 1.5 0.9 ± 0.8 1.7 ± 3.1

Table 12. Mean normalized deviations Δ ± σ of experimental data for 31 ions from 19K to 92U in all 54 solid elemental targets for which we have data, in various ranges of specific energy.

E/A1 (MeV) 0.25 – 2.5 2.5 - 30 30 - 100 Total

SRIM 1.4 ± 6.9 -6.0 ± 10.3 -7.2 ± 5.9 -3.4 ± 9.7

*Number of points 276 459 38 773* 

Table 13. Δ ± σ (in %) for SRIM, for ions from 19K to 92U in all elemental gas targets for which

1000

Total range

Range

(MeV) 0.025-0.25 0.25 – 2.5 2.5 - 30 30 - 100 100 - 500 500 -

based on PASS, but incorporating a realistic mean charge of the ion.

we have experimental data in (Paul, 2011a).

*E/A1*

Fig. 6. The stopping power of elements for U ions at 10 MeV/nucleon, as a function of target atomic number. The graph shows the well-known positive solid-gas difference.


Table 14. Δ ± σ (in %) for SRIM, for ions from 19K to 92U in all gaseous compounds for which we have data in (Paul, 2011a): butane, CF4, methane, CO2, and C3F8 (Freon-218).

Table 15 shows a statistical comparison for solid compounds. The deviation between SRIM and experiments is larger than for elements, and SRIM is too low, on the average. An example is the case for Ni ions in SiC (see the figure in (Paul, 2011a)).


Table 15. Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 19K to 92U in all solid compounds (Al2O3, Formvar, Havar, Mylar, NE111 Plastic Scintillator, Polycarbonate, Polyethylene naphthalate, Polypropylene, Polystyrene, SiC, Silicon Nitride, ZrO2) for which we have data in (Paul, 2011a) and which are calculable, compared to SRIM.

#### **5. Water as a target**

Water as a target is especially important for medical physics. Fig. 7 gives an overview of experimental and tabulated values of the stopping power of solid and liquid water for

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 127

Fig. 8. Stopping power of liquid water for protons, normalized by the table ICRU 49. The designations for tables and for experimental points are as in Fig. 7. *I*-values are shown in

75.4 ± 1.919 Thompson, 1952 Range, 340 – 200 MeV p, assuming *I*Cu = 322 eV

*I* (eV) Reference Method or remark

75.0 ± 3 Chosen in ICRU 37, 49 78.0 ± 2 Chosen in Sigmund et al. (2009)

19 The data were analyzed by Berger (ICRU Report 37)

Table 16. *I* values for liquid water.

74.6 ± 2.7 Nordin et al., 1979 Stopping power, 60 MeV pions 75 Ritchie et al., 1978 Dielectric response function 75.4 Ashley, 1982 Dielectric response function 81.77 Janni, 1982 Averaging data for H and O 79.7 ± 2 Bichsel et al., 1992 Ionization curves, 70 MeV p 81.8 Dingfelder et al., 1998 Dielectric response function 80.0 Bichsel et al., 2000 C ions, 290 MeV/u

77 Kramer et al., 2000 Depth dose curves for C ions 78.4 Kumazaki et al., 2007 Depth dose curves for protons

78 Schardt et al., 2008 Bragg curves for H, He, Li, C, and O ions

This brings up a problem (Paul, 2010). The Bethe equation (i.e., BEST) is generally reliable (Paul & Schinner, 2005) and depends only on *I* and on the shell correction in this energy region, and the latter correction is quite small here. The GarM09 curve and the PASS curve are very close to BEST, about 1 % below ICRU 49 (i.e., unity) due to the higher *I*-value. Hence it appears that the Emf09 curve (and also the Shimizu measurements) may be low by about 10 %.

Replaces the value 67.2 eV in ICRU Report 73

parentheses.

protons. Fig. 8 shows the same data again, but divided by the values of ICRU 49 (to make small differences apparent), and only the high energy part which is most important for radiation physics. Because corrections to the simple Bethe formula, eqs. (1 & 2), are smaller than 0.68 % beyond 10 MeV, the value of the stopping power is essentially given by the value of the mean ionization energy in this entire region.

Fig. 7. Electronic stopping power of solid and liquid water for protons, versus energy. The file designations for experiments are explained in Paul (2011a). The table and theory designations are explained in Table 1, except for the following: Emf06 (Emfietzoglou et al, 2006), Emf09 (Emfietzoglou et al., 2009), GarM09 (Garcia-Molina et al., 2009), PASS (Sigmund & Schinner, 2002; Sigmund, 2010)

Table 16 gives an overview of calculated and measured values of the mean ionization energy of liquid water18 (Paul et al., 2007a). On the basis of the data available in 1984, the value *I* = 75.0 was chosen in ICRU 37 (1984) and again in ICRU 49 (1993). But evidently, all the more recent determinations indicate a larger value.

Recently, there have been measurements of the stopping power of liquid water for protons by two groups: the Kyoto group (Shimizu et al., 2009, 2010) using a liquid water jet in vacuum, and the Jyväskylä group (Siiskonen, et al., 2011) using a thin water sheet (enclosed within two thin copper sheets) in transmission. The results are shown as points D, E and F in Figs. 7 and 8.

<sup>18</sup> We assume that the I-values for solid and liquid water are equal.

protons. Fig. 8 shows the same data again, but divided by the values of ICRU 49 (to make small differences apparent), and only the high energy part which is most important for radiation physics. Because corrections to the simple Bethe formula, eqs. (1 & 2), are smaller than 0.68 % beyond 10 MeV, the value of the stopping power is essentially given by the

Fig. 7. Electronic stopping power of solid and liquid water for protons, versus energy. The file designations for experiments are explained in Paul (2011a). The table and theory designations are explained in Table 1, except for the following: Emf06 (Emfietzoglou et al, 2006), Emf09 (Emfietzoglou et al., 2009), GarM09 (Garcia-Molina et al., 2009), PASS

Table 16 gives an overview of calculated and measured values of the mean ionization energy of liquid water18 (Paul et al., 2007a). On the basis of the data available in 1984, the value *I* = 75.0 was chosen in ICRU 37 (1984) and again in ICRU 49 (1993). But evidently, all

Recently, there have been measurements of the stopping power of liquid water for protons by two groups: the Kyoto group (Shimizu et al., 2009, 2010) using a liquid water jet in vacuum, and the Jyväskylä group (Siiskonen, et al., 2011) using a thin water sheet (enclosed within two thin copper sheets) in transmission. The results are shown as points D, E and F

value of the mean ionization energy in this entire region.

(Sigmund & Schinner, 2002; Sigmund, 2010)

in Figs. 7 and 8.

the more recent determinations indicate a larger value.

18 We assume that the I-values for solid and liquid water are equal.

Fig. 8. Stopping power of liquid water for protons, normalized by the table ICRU 49. The designations for tables and for experimental points are as in Fig. 7. *I*-values are shown in parentheses.


Table 16. *I* values for liquid water.

This brings up a problem (Paul, 2010). The Bethe equation (i.e., BEST) is generally reliable (Paul & Schinner, 2005) and depends only on *I* and on the shell correction in this energy region, and the latter correction is quite small here. The GarM09 curve and the PASS curve are very close to BEST, about 1 % below ICRU 49 (i.e., unity) due to the higher *I*-value. Hence it appears that the Emf09 curve (and also the Shimizu measurements) may be low by about 10 %.

<sup>19</sup> The data were analyzed by Berger (ICRU Report 37)

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 129

For a quantitative understanding of radiotherapy by positive ions, one needs information about stopping powers. In this chapter, we discuss stopping power tables and programs, and we compare them statistically to our large collection of experimental data. In this way, the reliability of various tables can be estimated. We describe it by Δ ± σ, where Δ is the average normalized difference between experimental and tabulated values, and σ is its standard deviation. A small Δ usually signifies good agreement; in this case, σ may be taken as a measure of the accuracy of the table. We treat both condensed and gaseous targets, and we consider elements, compounds and mixtures. We give an overview of relevant tables

We find that σ always decreases with increasing energy, and that in general, the agreement between tables and experimental data has improved in time. For H ions in elements, in the highest range of specific energy (10 – 100 MeV/nucleon), we find that σ = 0.5 %, on the average. For H and He ions in elements, σ is always smaller than 1 % in that energy range, except for He ions in elemental gases, where we have data only up to 10 MeV/nucleon. The SRIM tables and the tables from ICRU Report 49 are equally good in general, but the SRIM tables describe many more targets. For H and He ions, the gas measurements appear more reliable than those on solids. For compounds, results are similar to those for elements, except that experimental data go only up to 30 MeV/nucleon, so that σ is larger (2 – 4 %) in

For ions from 3Li to 18Ar in elemental solid targets compared to SRIM and MSTAR, we find that σ is about 1.5 % in the highest specific energy range (100 – 1000 MeV/nucleon) and that the energy-dependent accuracy is comparable in condensed compounds, except that data go only up to 100 MeV/nucleon in that case. ICRU Report 73 is too high at low energy, particularly for gases. For ions from 3Li to 18Ar, the overall agreement is not better for gases

For carbon ions in particular, the overall agreement is slightly better than for all ions (Li to Ar), but the accuracy in the highest energy range (10 – 100 MeV/nucleon) is only about 3 %,

For ions from 19K to 92U, the ATIMA, Hubert and SRIM tables are best in different ranges of specific energy. The positive gas-solid difference due to the high collision frequency of fast

Precise values of the mean ionization energy of a substance, *I*, deduced from range measurements, could often be more useful at high energy than measurements of stopping power. It is shown that the value *I* = 75 eV that has long been accepted for water, should be increased to *I* = 78 eV, following the very precise range measurements of Schardt et al. Recent stopping power measurements for water at Jyväskyläa are in good agreement with this value, but the measurements by the Kyoto group are probably too low by about 10 %. The *I*-value of water is also discussed in relation with the validity of the IAEA Code of

The help of N. Arista, P. Grande, D. Petrascheck, J. Rosina, P. Sigmund, A.H. Sørensen, H.

Weick and W. Zulehner in various phases of this work is gratefully acknowledged.

ions in solids is well described by the CasP program but not by SRIM.

and programs, and of the basic formulas of Bethe theory.

**7. Conclusion** 

the highest energy range.

much worse than for protons.

Practice for heavy ions.

**8. Acknowledgments** 

than for solids.

It appears that at present, the most precise measurements of the mean ionization energy of water are the range measurements made in Darmstadt (Schardt et al., 2008), leading to *I* = 78 eV. And this value has also been assumed for the corrected table of ICRU 73 (Sigmund et al., 2009). Evidently, the recent Jyväskylä measurements are in very good agreement with BEST and PASS (using I = 78 eV): the points F yield an average of 0.986 ± 0.005, very close to the relative value of BEST: 0.993. But the Jyväskylä results alone would not yield a precise *I* value; it is the range measurements (Schardt et al., 2008) that give a clear distinction between various values.

#### **6. Some remarks concerning the physics of radiation therapy**

In radiation therapy, water is used as tissue reference medium (Schardt et al., 2010). Rules for the application of proton therapy have been defined in ref. (ICRU, 2007).

For the dosimetry of fast heavy ions, following a recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (Andreo, 2000), air filled ionization chambers should be used. To convert the absorbed dose in air thus determined to the dose in water (Paul, Geithner and Jäkel, 2007a, 2007b), the first approximation is to use the ratio of mass stopping powers

$$\frac{(\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{E}) / \rho)\_w}{(\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{E}) / \rho)\_{air}} \tag{9}$$

where (*S(E)/*ρ)*m* denotes the mass stopping power of medium *m* evaluated at the energy *E.* 

This ratio is essentially determined by the mean ionization energies *I* of water and air. It should be sufficiently accurate from about 5 MeV/nucleon up to (but not beyond) the primary ion energy.

To obtain a more accurate correspondence between the measurement in air and its application to water, it is necessary to use Monte Carlo calculations to take into account all physical processes, especially the effect of fragments produced by nuclear reactions. One defines the 'stopping power ratio' (Andreo, 2000) (as opposed to the simple ratio of stopping powers defined above), i.e., the fluence-weighted average ratio of stopping powers

$$s\_{w,air} = \frac{\sum\_{i}^{n} \Phi\_{E,i,w}(\mathcal{S}\_i(\mathcal{E}) \;/\ \rho)\_w dE}{\sum\_{i}^{n} \int\_{0} \Phi\_{E,i,w}(\mathcal{S}\_i(\mathcal{E}) \;/\ \rho)\_{air} dE} \tag{10}$$

where *Si(E)/ρ* is the mass stopping power for a (primary or secondary) particle i with energy *E* in water or air, and *ФE,i,w* is the particle spectrum differential in energy, at a particular depth in water, for particles of type i.

For carbon ions of 400 MeV/nucleon and assuming an increased mean ionization energy *Iwater* = 80.8 eV for water, it was shown (Paul et al., 2007b) that *sw,air* still fits20 into the range *sw,air* = 1.13 ± 0.02 adopted for heavy ion beams by the IAEA Code of Practice (Andreo, 2000). This would probably hold also for the more realistic value *Iwater* = 78 eV adopted by ICRU 73.

<sup>20</sup> For lower ion energies, the limit 1.15 might be exceeded, however.

#### **7. Conclusion**

128 Modern Practices in Radiation Therapy

It appears that at present, the most precise measurements of the mean ionization energy of water are the range measurements made in Darmstadt (Schardt et al., 2008), leading to *I* = 78 eV. And this value has also been assumed for the corrected table of ICRU 73 (Sigmund et al., 2009). Evidently, the recent Jyväskylä measurements are in very good agreement with BEST and PASS (using I = 78 eV): the points F yield an average of 0.986 ± 0.005, very close to the relative value of BEST: 0.993. But the Jyväskylä results alone would not yield a precise *I* value; it is the range measurements (Schardt et al., 2008) that give a clear distinction

In radiation therapy, water is used as tissue reference medium (Schardt et al., 2010). Rules

For the dosimetry of fast heavy ions, following a recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (Andreo, 2000), air filled ionization chambers should be used. To convert the absorbed dose in air thus determined to the dose in water (Paul, Geithner and Jäkel, 2007a, 2007b), the first approximation is to use the ratio of mass stopping powers

> ( ( )/ ) ( ( )/ )

where (*S(E)/*ρ)*m* denotes the mass stopping power of medium *m* evaluated at the energy *E.*  This ratio is essentially determined by the mean ionization energies *I* of water and air. It should be sufficiently accurate from about 5 MeV/nucleon up to (but not beyond) the

To obtain a more accurate correspondence between the measurement in air and its application to water, it is necessary to use Monte Carlo calculations to take into account all physical processes, especially the effect of fragments produced by nuclear reactions. One defines the 'stopping power ratio' (Andreo, 2000) (as opposed to the simple ratio of stopping

, ,

( ( )/ )

*S E dE*

(10)

*S E dE*

*Eiw i w*

( ( )/ )

*E i w i air*

, ,

where *Si(E)/ρ* is the mass stopping power for a (primary or secondary) particle i with energy *E* in water or air, and *ФE,i,w* is the particle spectrum differential in energy, at a particular

For carbon ions of 400 MeV/nucleon and assuming an increased mean ionization energy *Iwater* = 80.8 eV for water, it was shown (Paul et al., 2007b) that *sw,air* still fits20 into the range *sw,air* = 1.13 ± 0.02 adopted for heavy ion beams by the IAEA Code of Practice (Andreo, 2000). This would probably hold also for the more realistic value *Iwater* = 78 eV adopted by ICRU 73.

powers defined above), i.e., the fluence-weighted average ratio of stopping powers

0

<sup>0</sup> ,

*w air*

*s*

20 For lower ion energies, the limit 1.15 might be exceeded, however.

depth in water, for particles of type i.

*i*

*i*

*S E S E*

*w air* (9)

**6. Some remarks concerning the physics of radiation therapy** 

for the application of proton therapy have been defined in ref. (ICRU, 2007).

between various values.

primary ion energy.

For a quantitative understanding of radiotherapy by positive ions, one needs information about stopping powers. In this chapter, we discuss stopping power tables and programs, and we compare them statistically to our large collection of experimental data. In this way, the reliability of various tables can be estimated. We describe it by Δ ± σ, where Δ is the average normalized difference between experimental and tabulated values, and σ is its standard deviation. A small Δ usually signifies good agreement; in this case, σ may be taken as a measure of the accuracy of the table. We treat both condensed and gaseous targets, and we consider elements, compounds and mixtures. We give an overview of relevant tables and programs, and of the basic formulas of Bethe theory.

We find that σ always decreases with increasing energy, and that in general, the agreement between tables and experimental data has improved in time. For H ions in elements, in the highest range of specific energy (10 – 100 MeV/nucleon), we find that σ = 0.5 %, on the average. For H and He ions in elements, σ is always smaller than 1 % in that energy range, except for He ions in elemental gases, where we have data only up to 10 MeV/nucleon. The SRIM tables and the tables from ICRU Report 49 are equally good in general, but the SRIM tables describe many more targets. For H and He ions, the gas measurements appear more reliable than those on solids. For compounds, results are similar to those for elements, except that experimental data go only up to 30 MeV/nucleon, so that σ is larger (2 – 4 %) in the highest energy range.

For ions from 3Li to 18Ar in elemental solid targets compared to SRIM and MSTAR, we find that σ is about 1.5 % in the highest specific energy range (100 – 1000 MeV/nucleon) and that the energy-dependent accuracy is comparable in condensed compounds, except that data go only up to 100 MeV/nucleon in that case. ICRU Report 73 is too high at low energy, particularly for gases. For ions from 3Li to 18Ar, the overall agreement is not better for gases than for solids.

For carbon ions in particular, the overall agreement is slightly better than for all ions (Li to Ar), but the accuracy in the highest energy range (10 – 100 MeV/nucleon) is only about 3 %, much worse than for protons.

For ions from 19K to 92U, the ATIMA, Hubert and SRIM tables are best in different ranges of specific energy. The positive gas-solid difference due to the high collision frequency of fast ions in solids is well described by the CasP program but not by SRIM.

Precise values of the mean ionization energy of a substance, *I*, deduced from range measurements, could often be more useful at high energy than measurements of stopping power. It is shown that the value *I* = 75 eV that has long been accepted for water, should be increased to *I* = 78 eV, following the very precise range measurements of Schardt et al. Recent stopping power measurements for water at Jyväskyläa are in good agreement with this value, but the measurements by the Kyoto group are probably too low by about 10 %. The *I*-value of water is also discussed in relation with the validity of the IAEA Code of Practice for heavy ions.

#### **8. Acknowledgments**

The help of N. Arista, P. Grande, D. Petrascheck, J. Rosina, P. Sigmund, A.H. Sørensen, H. Weick and W. Zulehner in various phases of this work is gratefully acknowledged.

The Stopping Power of Matter for Positive Ions 131

ICRU Report 78 (2007). Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Proton-Beam Therapy. *J.* 

Janni, J.F. (1982). Proton Range-Energy Tables. *Atomic Data Nucl. Data Tables,* Vol. 27,

Krämer, M., Jäkel, O., Haberer, T., Schardt, D., Weber, U. (2000). Treatment planning for

Lindhard, J., Sørensen, A.H. (1996). Relativistic theory of stopping for heavy ions, *Phys. Rev.* 

Markin, S.N., Primetzhofer, D., Bauer, P. (2009). Vanishing Electronic Energy Loss of Very Slow Light Ions in Insulators with Large Band Gaps. *Phys. Rev. Lett*. Vol. 103, pp. 113201, 1-4 Moyers, M.F., et al. (2010). Ion stopping powers and CT numbers. *Medical Dosimetry*, Vol. 35,

NIST ESTAR. Available from http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ESTAR.html NIST PSTAR. Available from http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/PSTAR.html Nordin, J.A., Henkelman, R.M. (1979). Measurement of stopping power ratios for 60 MeV

Paul, H., Berger, M.J. (1995), Stopping Powers, Ranges and Straggling, In: *Atomic and* 

Paul, H., Schinner, A. (2001). An empirical approach to the stopping power of solids and gases for ions from Li to Ar. *Nucl. Instrum. Methods B* Vol. 179, pp. 299-315

Paul, H. (2006). A comparison of recent stopping power tables for light and medium-heavy

Paul, H., Schinner, A. (2006). Statistical analysis of stopping data for protons and alphas in

Paul, H., Geithner, O., Jäkel, O. (2007a). The influence of stopping powers upon dosimetry

Paul, H., Geithner, O., Jäkel, O. (2007b). The ratio of stopping powers of water and air for

Paul, H., Grande, P., Smith, D.Y. (2009a). Optical oscillator strengths, mean ionization

Paul, H. (2009b). Some new results on stopping power for fast ions. *AIP Conf. Proc. 1099,* pp.

Paul, H. (2010). Recent results in stopping power for positive ions, and some critical

Paul, H. (2011a). Stopping Power for Light Ions*,* Available from <http://www.exphys.uni-

comments. *Nucl. Instrum. Methods B* Vol. 268, pp. 3421-3425

 <http://www.exphys.uni-linz.ac.at/stopping/MSTARWWW/MSTAR312.zip> Paul, H., Schinner, A. (2005). Judging the reliability of stopping power tables and programs

*molecular data for radiotherapy and radiation research*, pp. 415-545, IAEA-TECDOC-799

for protons and alpha particles using statistical methods. *Nucl. Instrum. Methods B*

ions with experimental data, and applications to radiotherapy dosimetry. *Nucl.* 

for radiation therapy with energetic ions. *Adv. Quantum Chemistry*, John R. Sabin,

dosimetry applications in tumor therapy. *Nucl. Instrum. Methods B* Vol. 256, pp. 561-564

energy, shell corrections and experimental values for stopping power. *Nucl.* 

positive or negative pions. *Phys. Med. Biol.*, Vol. 24, no. 4, 781-792

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ASTAR.html

heavy-ion radiotherapy : physical beam model and dose optimization. *Phys. Med.* 

*ICRU,* Vol. 7, no. 2

No. 1, pp. 147-529

No. 3, pp. 179-194

NIST ASTAR. Available from

*Biol.* Vol. 45, no.11, pp. 3299-3317

*A* Vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 2443-2456

Moyers, M.F. (2011). Personal communication

Paul, H. (2003). MSTAR version 3. Available from

*Instrum. Methods B* Vol. 247, no. 2, pp. 166-172

Erkki Brandäs (Eds.) Vol. 52, pp. 289-306

*Instrum. Methods B* Vol. 267, pp. 2471-2474

compounds. *Nucl. Instrum. Methods B* Vol. 249, pp. 1-5

Vol. 227, pp. 461-470

251-254

linz.ac.at/stopping/>

#### **9. References**


Andreo, P., et al. (2000). Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An

Berger, M.J., Bichsel, H. (1994). BEST, BEthe STopping power program. Unpublished. Bethe, H. (1932). Bremsformel für Elektronen relativistischer Geschwindigkeit, *Z. Phys*. Vol.

Bichsel, H., Hiraoka, T. (1992). Energy loss of 70 MeV protons in elements. *Nucl. Instrum.* 

Bichsel, H., Hiraoka, T., Omata, K.. (2000). Aspects of fast ion dosimetry. *Radiat. Res*. Vol.

Bragg, W.H., Kleeman, R. (1905). Range of ALPHA-particles of radium. *Phil. Mag.* Vol. 10,

Emfietzoglou, D., Nikjoo, H., Pathak, A. (2006) Electronic cross sections for proton transport

Emfietzoglou, D., Garcia-Molina, R., Kyriakou, I., Abril, I., Nikjoo, H. (2009). A dielectric

Fettouhi, A., Geissel, H., Schinner, A., Sigmund, P. (2006). Stopping of high-Z ions at

Garcia-Molina, R., Abril, I., Denton, C.D., Heredia-Avalos, S., Kyriakou, I., Emfietzoglou, D.

Geissel, H., et al. (1982). Observation of a gas-solid difference in the stopping powers of

Geissel, H., Scheidenberger, Ch., Malzacher, P., Kunzendorf, J., Weick, H. (2011). ATIMA.

Golser, R., Semrad, D. (1991). Observation of a striking departure from velocity

Grande, P.L., Schiwietz, G., CasP (2004). In: Advances in Quantum Chemistry, Cabrera-

http://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/people/gregor-schiwietz/casp\_en.html Hubert, F., Bimbot, R. & Gauvin, H. (1990). Range and stopping-power tables for 2.5-500

ICRU Report 37 (1984), Stopping Powers for Electrons and Positrons, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, USA ICRU Report 49 (1993), Stopping Powers and Ranges for Protons and Alpha Particles, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, USA

ICRU Report 73 (2005), Stopping of Ions Heavier Than Helium, *J. ICRU*, Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-253

intermediate velocities. *Nucl. Instrum. Methods B* Vol. 245, pp. 22-27

*Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B*, Vol. 267, no. 16, pp. 2647-2652

(1-10) MeV/u heavy ions. *Phys. Letters,* Vol. 88A, pp. 26-28

Available from http://www-linux.gsi.de/~weick/atima/

in liquid water based on optical-data models. *Nucl. Instrum. Methods B*, Vol. 249, no.

response study of the electronic stopping power of liquid water for energetic protons and a new *I* value for water. *Phys. Med. Biol.* Vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 3451-3472 Fermi, E., Teller, E. (1947). The capture of negative mesotrons in matter. *Phys. Rev.* Vol. 72,

(2009). Calculated depth-dose distributions for H+ and He+ beams in liquid water.

proportionality in low-energy electronic stopping. *Phys. Rev. Lett.,* Vol. 66, no. 14,

Trujillo, R., Sabin, J.R. (Eds.).Vol. 45, pp. 7-46, Elsevier. Program available from

MeV/nucleon heavy ions in solids, *Atomic Data Nucl. Data Tables*, Vol. 46, no. 1,

International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of absorbed Dose to Water, *Tech. Report Series No. 398*, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna Arista, N.R., Lifschitz, A.F.(2004). Non-Linear Approach to the Energy Loss of Ions in Solids, in *Advances in Quantum Chemistry*, ed. by J. Sabin, Vol. 45, pp. 47-77, Elsevier Inc. Ashley, J.C. (1982). Stopping Power of Liquid Water for low energy electrons. *Radiat. Res.,*

**9. References** 

Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 25-31

153, no. 2, pp. 208-219

*Methods B,* Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 345-351

76, pp. 293-299

pp. 318-340

1-2, pp. 26-28

pp. 399-408

pp. 1831-1833

pp. 1-213


http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ASTAR.html


**Part 3** 

**Brachytherapy and Intraoperative** 

**Radiation Treatments**


 http://www.gsi.de/informationen/wti/library/scientificreport2007/PAPERS/RA DIATION-BIOPHYSICS-19.pdf.

