Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Andersen, Claus E.

  • Google
  • 2
  • 5
  • 54

Technical University of Denmark

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2019Radiochromic and radiofluorogenic solid state polymer dosimeter; a third signal: Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR)4citations
  • 2014Dosimetric characterization of the Exradin W1 plastic scintillator detector through comparison with an in-house developed scintillator system50citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Bernal-Zamorano, M. R.
1 / 1 shared
Lindvold, Lars René
1 / 5 shared
Sanders, N. H.
1 / 1 shared
Behrens, Claus F.
1 / 1 shared
Beierholm, Anders Ravnsborg
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2019
2014

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Bernal-Zamorano, M. R.
  • Lindvold, Lars René
  • Sanders, N. H.
  • Behrens, Claus F.
  • Beierholm, Anders Ravnsborg
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Dosimetric characterization of the Exradin W1 plastic scintillator detector through comparison with an in-house developed scintillator system

  • Behrens, Claus F.
  • Beierholm, Anders Ravnsborg
  • Andersen, Claus E.
Abstract

New commercial dosimetry systems need careful characterization and can benefit from the comparison with similar, in-house developed solutions. A comparison between such two dosimetry systems, both based on fibre-coupled organic plastic scintillator detectors, is presented. One system is the Exradin W1, fully commercialized by Standard Imaging, while the other system is the non-commercial ME40 system, developed by DTU Nutech with the aim of fundamental dosimetric research. Both systems employ plastic scintillator detectors that can be considered similar in design, calibrated using the same method, but differing primarily in the signal detection hardware. The two systems were compared with respect to essential dosimetric properties, with the purpose of testing their performance under conditions less well discussed in the literature. A Farmer ionization chamber was used as the primary reference of the comparison. The study demonstrated that the Cerenkov light ratio calibration coefficient of both systems was not constant, but changed systematically with photon beam quality to a maximum difference of 1.1%.Calibration with respect to stem effect correction should therefore be performed for every investigated beam quality when using plastic scintillator detectors. Both systems were found to be dose rate independent, even for the highest instantaneous dose rate evaluated (1.5 mGy per pulse). Low-dose measurements revealed large uncertainties for both systems, although the ME40 system handled short beam deliveries under reference conditions with accuracy and precision within 0.4%. Changes in response due to field size dependence were investigated and found to be as large as 3.3% for the W1 and 5.4% for the ME40, biasing output factor measurements in large fields. Great caution is therefore advised if using either system for measurements in large fields or under circumstances where the fibre irradiation geometry is unfavourable. Measurements of reference dose to water yielded differences up to 1.5% when compared with the Farmer ionization chamber for all investigated beam qualities.<br/>© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved<br/>

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • polymer
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • dosimetry