Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
8088079
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
A comparison of x-ray detectors for mouse CT imaging
Author(s)
Goertzen, AL; Nagarkar, V; Street, RA; Paulus, MJ; Boone, JM; Cherry, SR
Year
2004
Is Peer Reviewed?
1
Journal
Physics in Medicine and Biology
ISSN:
0031-9155
EISSN:
1361-6560
Volume
49
Issue
23
Page Numbers
5251-5265
Language
English
PMID
15656275
DOI
10.1088/0031-9155/49/23/004
Web of Science Id
WOS:000226406200004
Abstract
There is significant interest in using computed tomography (CT) for in vivo imaging applications in mouse models of disease. Most commercially available mouse x-ray CT scanners utilize a charge-coupled device (CCD) detector coupled via fibre optic taper to a phosphor screen. However, there has been little research to determine if this is the optimum detector for the specific task of in vivo mouse imaging. To investigate this issue, we have evaluated four detectors, including an amorphous selenium (a-Se) detector, an amorphous silicon (a-Si) detector with a gadolinium oxysulphide (GOS) screen, a CCD with a 3:1 fibre taper and a GOS screen, and a CCD with a 2:1 fibre taper and both GOS and thallium-doped caesium iodide (CsI:Tl) screens. The detectors were evaluated by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), detective quantum efficiency (DQE), stability over multiple exposures, and noise in reconstructed CT images. The a-Se detector had the best MTF and the highest DQE (0.6 at 0 lp mm(-1)) but had the worst stability (45% reduction after 2000 exposure frames). The a-Si detector and the CCD with the 3:1 fibre, both of which used the GOS screen, had very similar performance with a DQE of approximately 0.30 at 0 lp mm(-1). For the CCD with the 2:1 fibre, the CsI:Tl screen resulted in a nearly two-fold improvement in DQE over the GOS screen (0.4 versus 0.24 at 0 lp mm(-1)). The CCDs both had the best stability, with less than a 1% change in pixel values over multiple exposures. The pixel values of the a-Si detector increased 5% over multiple exposures due to the effects of image lag. Despite the higher DQE of the a-Se detector, the reconstructed CT images acquired with the a-Si detector had lower noise levels, likely due to the blurring effects from the phosphor screen.
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity