Literature DB >> 12852526

Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter.

Emmanuel G Christodoulou1, Mitchell M Goodsitt, Sandra C Larson, Katie L Darner, Jahangir Satti, Heang-Ping Chan.   

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate the radiation transmission through lead equivalent aprons that are used in a radiology department. A large area beam (poor geometry) was employed for the transmission measurements, and backscatter was simulated by placing 7" of Lucite behind each apron. Separate ionization chambers were used to measure the incident and transmitted x-ray beams. Transmission measurements were made at 70 kVp and 100 kVp through aprons and protective shields from eight different vendors that were marked 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm lead equivalent. Transmissions through 0.254 mm and 0.508 mm of pure lead were also measured and were compared with the transmissions through the lead equivalent materials. In addition, the area densities of the aprons were measured to compare radiation transmission with respect to the weights of the aprons. At 70 kVp, the transmission through 0.254 mm of pure lead was 5.4% and the transmissions through the 0.25 mm lead equivalent materials were 4.3% to 10.2% with a mean value of 7.1% and a standard deviation (s.d.) of 1.4%. At 100 kVp, the values were 15% for 0.254 mm pure lead and 12.3% to 20.7% (mean 16.8%, s.d. 2.1%) for the 0.25 mm lead equivalent materials. The transmission through the 0.508 mm pure lead sample was 0.9% at 70 kVp, and the corresponding transmissions through the 0.5 mm lead equivalent materials were 0.6% to 1.6% (mean 1.0%, s.d. 0.2%). At 100 kVp, the transmission through the 0.508 mm lead sample was 5% and those through the 0.5 mm lead equivalent materials were 3.5% to 6.7% (mean 4.9%, s.d. 0.7%). The radiation transmissions at 70 kVp, through two "lead-free" 0.5 mm lead equivalent aprons, were 1.7% and 1.9% and at 100 kVp the transmissions were 6.1% and 6.8%, respectively. This study indicates that there is a need to establish methods for acceptance testing of aprons and a need to establish acceptance limits for the x-ray transmission of aprons at specific kVp values. There is also a need for the establishment of appropriate methods and frequencies of routine quality assurance testing of radiation protection aprons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12852526     DOI: 10.1118/1.1573207

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  21 in total

1.  Radiation exposure of operator performing interventional procedures using a flat panel angiography system: evaluation with photoluminescence glass dosimeters.

Authors:  Yoshinori Funama; Nozomu Nagasue; Kazuo Awai; Ichiro Sakamoto; Kiyotaka Kakei; Masamichi Shimamura; Yasuyuki Yamashita; Masataka Uetani
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  Protective aprons in imaging departments: manufacturer stated lead equivalence values require validation.

Authors:  M Finnerty; P C Brennan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-03-24       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  On the (f)utility of measuring the lead equivalence of protective garments.

Authors:  A Kyle Jones; Louis K Wagner
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: a joint guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology.

Authors:  Donald L Miller; Eliseo Vañó; Gabriel Bartal; Stephen Balter; Robert Dixon; Renato Padovani; Beth Schueler; John F Cardella; Thierry de Baère
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 5.  The Growing Culture Of A Minimally Fluoroscopic Approach In Electrophysiology Lab.

Authors:  Michela Casella; Eleonora Russo; Francesca Pizzamiglio; Sergio Conti; Ghaliah Al-Mohani; Daniele Colombo; Victor Casula; Yuri D Alessandra; Viviana Biagioli; Corrado Carbucicchio; Stefania Riva; Gaetano Fassini; Massimo Moltrasio; Fabrizio Tundo; Martina Zucchetti; Benedetta Majocchi; Vittoria Marino; Giovanni Forleo; Pasquale Santangeli; Luigi Di Biase; Antonio Dello Russo; Andrea Natale; Claudio Tondo
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2014-08-31

Review 6.  A Tutorial on Diagnostic Benefit and Radiation Risk in Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Studies.

Authors:  Harry R Ingleby; Heather S Bonilha; Catriona M Steele
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 3.438

7.  Organ-specific external dose coefficients and protective apron transmission factors for historical dose reconstruction for medical personnel.

Authors:  Steven L Simon
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.922

8.  Assessment of the Radiation Attenuation Properties of Several Lead Free Composites by Monte Carlo Simulation.

Authors:  M Kazempour; M Saeedimoghadam; F Shekoohi Shooli; N Shokrpour
Journal:  J Biomed Phys Eng       Date:  2015-06-01

9.  Evaluation of the effectiveness of X-ray protective aprons in experimental and practical fields.

Authors:  Hiroshige Mori; Kichiro Koshida; Osamu Ishigamori; Kosuke Matsubara
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2013-12-13

10.  Evaluation of the occupational doses of interventional radiologists.

Authors:  Gerritjan Kuipers; Xandra L Velders; Robbert J de Winter; Jim A Reekers; Jan J Piek
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 2.740

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.