Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Aug 9.
Published in final edited form as: Phys Med Biol. 2017 Aug 9;62(17):7056–7074. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa7dc9

Table 2.

Comparison of the Hünemohr method and the Saito method to estimate ρe and Z.

Method Calibration
materials		 RMS error (%) on ρe estimation RMS error (%) on Z estimation
Lung Soft Bone Lung Soft Bone
Hünemohr Adipose 0.85 0.55 5.44 2.05 1.95 2.04
Brain 0.95 0.51 1.27 2.46 2.30 4.31
Cortical bone 0.98 0.54 0.42 2.21 1.70 2.34
HS 3 materials c 0.01 0.33 0.49 0.03 1.94 1.27
7 materials d 0.11 0.33 0.42 0.25 1.43 1.30
13 materials 0.17 0.32 0.41 1.02 1.47 1.34

The calibration material combinations were c[lung (LN450), solid water, CB2-50%] and d[lung (LN450), adipose, breast, solid water, brain, B200, CB2-50%].