16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Physical analysis of the shielding capacity for a lightweight apron designed for shielding low intensity scattering X-rays

      research-article
      1 , a , 2 , 2
      Scientific Reports
      Nature Publishing Group

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The purpose of this paper is to develop a lightweight apron that will be used for shielding low intensity radiation in medical imaging radiography room and to apply it to a custom-made effective shielding. The quality of existing aprons made for protecting our bodies from direct radiation are improved so that they are suitable for scattered X-rays. Textiles that prevent bodies from radiation are made by combining barium sulfate and liquid silicon. These materials have the function of shielding radiation in a manner like lead. Three kinds of textiles are produced. The thicknesses of each textile are 0.15 mm, 0.21 mm, and 0.29 mm and the corresponding lead equivalents are 0.039 mmPb, 0.095 mmPb, 0.22 mmPb for each. The rate of shielding space scattering rays are 80% from the distance of 0.5 m, 86% from 1.0 m, and 97% from 1.5 m. If we intend to approach with the purpose of shielding scattering X-rays and low intensity radiations, it is possible to reduce the weight of the apron to be 1/5 compared to that of the existing lead aprons whose weight is typically more than 4 kg. We confirm, therefore, that it is possible to produce lightweight aprons that are used for the purpose of shielding low dose radiations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

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

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of a radiation protection cabin for invasive electrophysiological procedures.

            Complex invasive electrophysiological procedures may result in high cumulative operator radiation exposure. Classical protection with lead aprons results in discomfort while radioprotection is still incomplete. This study evaluated the usefulness of a radiation protection cabin (RPC) that completely surrounds the operator. The evaluation was performed independently in two electrophysiology laboratories (E1-Leuven, Belgium; E2-Bordeaux, France), comparing operator radiation exposure using the RPC vs. a 0.5 mm lead-equivalent apron (total of 135 procedures). E1 used thermoluminiscent dosimeters (TLDs) placed at 16 positions in and out of the RPC and nine positions in and out of the apron. E2 used more sensitive electronic personal dosimeters (EPD), placed at waist and neck. The sensitivity thresholds of the TLDs and EPDs were 10-20 microSv and 1-1.5 microSv, respectively. All procedures could be performed unimpeded with the RPC. Median TLD dose values outside protected areas were in the range of 57-452 microSv, whereas doses under the apron or inside the RPC were all at the background radiation level, irrespective of procedure and fluoroscopy duration and of radiation energy delivered. In addition, the RPC was protecting the entire body (except the hands), whereas lead apron protection is incomplete. Also with the more sensitive EPDs, the radiation dose within the RPC was at the sensitivity threshold/background level (1.3+/-0.6 microSv). Again, radiation to the head was significantly lower within the RPC (1.9+/-1.2 microSv) than with the apron (102+/-23 microSv, P<0.001). The use of the RPC allows performing catheter ablation procedures without compromising catheter manipulation, and with negligible radiation exposure for the operator.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of a lead glass screen on scatter radiation to eyes and hands in interventional cardiologists.

              The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a transparent lead glass screen (TLGS) on scatter radiation to the eyes and the hands in interventional cardiologists and to compare the results to the recommended annual threshold values of 150 and 500 mSv, respectively. Local radiation doses to the left eye and the ring finger of the left hand of three operators (A, B, C) were assessed by thermoluminiscence dosimeters during 813 coronary angiographies (CAs), including 190 ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) either with a TLGS placed between patient and operator [615 CAs including 138 ad hoc PCIs; dose-area product (DAP) = 84.9 +/- 71.3 Gy x cm(2)], or without (198 CAs including 52 PCIs; DAP = 85.7 +/- 61.5 Gy x cm(2)). To determine the efficacy of the TLGS, average DAP-normalized local doses were calculated. Using a TLGS, operator A, B, and C performed 259 (in 9 months), 211 (in 8 months), and 145 CAs (in 8 months) with TLGS and acquired cumulative eye lens doses of 5.5, 1.5, and 1.0 mSv corresponding to extrapolated annual doses of 7.3, 2.3, and 1.5 mSv. The cumulative finger doses were 9.6, 10.3, and 6.4 mSv, resulting in extrapolated annual doses of 12.8, 15.5, and 9.6 mSv. Compared to 139 (in 5 months), 36 (in 2 months), and 23 CAs (in 2 months) without TLGS, the use of a TLGS reduced the DAP-normalized eye dose by a factor of 19 (with TLGS 0.153 vs. without TLGS 2.924 microSv/Gy x cm(2)), whereas only a weak effect on the dose to the hands was observed (with TLGS 0.504 vs. without TLGS 0.578 microSv/Gy x cm(2)). The consequent use of a TLGS efficiently reduces scatter radiation to the operator's eyes in daily practice, but has only minimal effects on the dose to the hands.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group
                2045-2322
                27 July 2016
                2016
                : 6
                : 27721
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Keimyung University , Dalgubeol-daero 1095, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea
                [2 ]Department of Radiologic Technology, Daegu Health College , Yeongsong-ro 15, Buk-gu, Daegu 41453, Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                Article
                srep27721
                10.1038/srep27721
                4962047
                27461510
                3bb6fefb-c471-4278-a4fb-2e60ca42153c
                Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 30 November 2014
                : 23 May 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article