Does the BioBLU 0.3f single-use scale to the BioFlo® 320 reuseable bioreactor on a matched volumetric oxygen mass transfer coefficient?

The volumetric oxygen mass transfer coefficient ([Formula: see text]) is an essential parameter in aerobic high-cell density fermentation where the availability of oxygen to growing microorganisms is a limiting factor. Bioprocess teams looking to scale-up/down between the Eppendorf BioBLU 0.3f single-use vessel and the BioFlo® 320 reusable vessel bioreactors may find it challenging using a matched [Formula: see text]. The maximum [Formula: see text] of the BioFlo® 320 reusable bioreactor was 109 h-1, which was approximately twice that of the BioBLU 0.3f single-use vessel. The results here show no overlap in [Formula: see text] values when both bioreactors were compared and thus conclude that scalability based on [Formula: see text] is not viable. The maximum [Formula: see text] of the Eppendorf BioBLU 0.3f single-use reported here was 47 h-1 compared to that of the manufacturer's value of 2500 h-1, indicating a 53-fold difference. This discrepancy was attributed to the incompatible sulfite addition method used by the manufacturer for estimation.

An integral quality monitoring system for real-time verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To develop an independent and on-line beam monitoring system, which can validate the accuracy of segment-by-segment energy fluence delivery for each treatment field. The system is also intended to be utilized for pretreatment dosimetric quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), on-line image-guided adaptive radiation therapy, and volumetric modulated arc therapy. METHODS: The system, referred to as the integral quality monitor (IQM), utilizes an area integrating energy fluence monitoring sensor (AIMS) positioned between the final beam shaping device [i.e., multileaf collimator (MLC)] and the patient. The prototype AIMS consists of a novel spatially sensitive large area ionization chamber with a gradient along the direction of the MLC motion. The signal from the AIMS provides a simple output for each beam segment, which is compared in real time to the expected value. The prototype ionization chamber, with a physical area of 22 x 22 cm2, has been constructed out of aluminum with the electrode separations varying linearly from 2 to 20 mm. A calculation method has been developed to predict AIMS signals based on an elementwise integration technique, which takes into account various predetermined factors, including the spatial response function of the chamber, MLC characteristics, beam transmission through the secondary jaws, and field size factors. The influence of the ionization chamber on the beam has been evaluated in terms of transmission, surface dose, beam profiles, and depth dose. The sensitivity of the system was tested by introducing small deviations in leaf positions. A small set of IMRT fields for prostate and head and neck plans was used to evaluate the system. The ionization chamber and the data acquisition software systems were interfaced to two different types of linear accelerators: Elekta Synergy and Varian iX. RESULTS: For a 10 x 10 cm2 field, the chamber attenuates the beam intensity by 7% and 5% for 6 and 18 MV beams, respectively, without significantly changing the depth dose, surface dose, and dose profile characteristics. An MLC bank calibration error of 1 mm causes the IQM signal of a 3 x 3 cm2 aperture to change by 3%. A positioning error in a single 5 mm wide leaf by 3 mm in 3 X 3 cm2 aperture causes a signal difference of 2%. Initial results for prostate and head and neck IMRT fields show an average agreement between calculation and measurement to within 1%, with a maximum deviation for each of the smallest beam segments to within 5%. When the beam segments of a prostate IMRT field were shifted by 3 mm from their original position, along the direction of the MLC motion, the IQM signals varied, on average, by 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The prototype IQM system can validate the accuracy of beam delivery in real time by comparing precalculated and measured AIMS signals. The system is capable of capturing errors in MLC leaf calibration or malfunctions in the positioning of an individual leaf. The AIMS does not significantly alter the beam quality and therefore could be implemented without requiring recommissioning measurements.

Dose to radiation therapists from activation at high-energy accelerators used for conventional and intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

The increased beam-on times which characterize intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) could lead to an increase in the dose received by radiation therapists due to induced activity. To examine this, gamma ray spectrometry was used to identify the major isotopes responsible for activation at a representative location in the treatment room of an 18 MV accelerator (Varian Clinac 21EX). These were found to be 28Al, 56Mn, and 24Na. The decay of the dose rate measured at this location following irradiation was analyzed in terms of the known half-lives to yield saturation dose rates of 9.6, 12.4, and 6.2 microSv/h, respectively. A formalism was developed to estimate activation dose (microSv/week) due to successive patient irradiation cycles, characterized by the number of 18 MV fractions per week, F, the number of MU per fraction, M, the in-room time between fractions, td (min), and the treatment delivery time t'r (min). The results are represented by the sum of two formulas, one for the dose from 28Al 1.8 x 10(-3) F M (1-e(-03t'(r))/t'r and one for the dose from the other isotopes approximately 1.1 x 10(-6) F(1.7) Mt(d). For conventional therapy doses are about 60 microSv/week for an 18 MV workload of 60,000 MU/week. Irradiation for QA purposes can significantly increase the dose. For IMRT as currently practiced, lengthy treatment delivery times limit the number of fractions that can be delivered per week and hence limit the dose to values similar to those in conventional therapy. However for an IMRT regime designed to maximize patient throughput, doses up to 330 microSv/week could be expected. To reduce dose it is recommended that IMRT treatments should be delivered at energies lower than 18 MV, that in multienergy IMRT, high-energy treatments should be scheduled in the latter part of the day, and that equipment manufacturers should strive to minimize activation in the design of high-energy accelerators.