ABSTRACT
Rigid polyurethane foam (PUF) was successfully prepared from a novel oligo-ester-ether-diol obtained from the glycolysis of waste poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) bottles via reaction with diethylene glycol (DEG) in the presence of ZnSO4·7H2O. The LC-MS analysis of the oligodiol enabled us to identify 67 chemical homologous structures that were composed of zero to four terephthalate (T) ester units and two to twelve monoethylene glycol (M) ether units. The flame retardant, morphological, compression, and thermal properties of rigid PUFs with and without triphenyl phosphate (TPP) were determined. The Tg values showed that TPP played a role of not only being a flame retardant, but also a plasticizer. PUF with a rather low TPP loading had an excellent flame retardancy and high thermal stability. A loading of 10 wt % TPP not only achieved a UL-94 V-0 rating, but also obtained an LOI value of 21%. Meanwhile, the PUF without a flame retardant did not achieve a UL-94 HB rating; the sample completely burned to the holder clamp and yielded a low LOI value (17%). The fire properties measured with the cone calorimeter were also discussed, and the results further proved that the flame retardancy of the PUF with the addition of TPP was improved significantly. The polymeric material meets the demands of density and compression strength for commercial PUF, as well as the needs of environmental development. The current study may help overcome the drawback of intrinsic high flammability and enlarge the fire safety applications of materials with a high percentage of recycled PET.
ABSTRACT
A linear accelerator with the flattening-filter removed generates a non-uniform dose profile beam. We aimed to analyse and compare plan quality and treatment time between flattened beam (FB) and flattening-filter-free (FFF) beam to assess the efficacy of FFF beam for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The search strategy was based around 3 concepts; radiation therapy, flattening-filter-free and treatment delivery. The years searched were restricted from 2010 to date of review (October 2015). All plan quality comparisons were between FFF and FB plans from the same data sets. We identified 210 potential studies based on the three searched concepts. All articles were screened by two authors for title and abstract and by three authors for full text. Ten studies met the eligibility criteria. Plan quality was evaluated using conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI) and gradient index (GI). Dose to organs-at-risk (OAR) and healthy tissues were compared. Differences between beam-on-time (BOT) and treatment time (T × T) were also analysed. Normalized percentage ratios of CI and HI demonstrated no clinical differences among the studied articles. GI displayed small variations between the articles favouring FFF beam. The BOT with FFF is substantially reduced, and appears to impact the frequency of intra-fraction imaging which, in turn, affects total treatment time. Based on planning tumour volume (PTV) coverage, dose to OAR and healthy tissue sparing, FFF beam is clinically effective for the treatment of cancer patients using SBRT. We recommend the use of FFF beam for SBRT based on these factors and the reported overall treatment time reduction.
