Abstract
Evaluation of radiation protective devices in radiology departments is one of the practices that ensure radiation protection and staff and patients safety in hospitals. A research work to evaluate 1.5mm lead shield used for radiological protection was carried out in Radiological Unit of Sharda Hospital, of Sharda University, India, using 300mA fixed x-ray machine room. The evaluation was done in the x-ray energy (kVp) range between 52- 81 and by using calculative procedure and by direct measurement of the radiation dose rates. The two results were compared. The resultsshows that, in the absence of the shield, only 11.82% of the radiation exposure was attenuated by the air space before reaching the radiographer’s stand, while in the presence of the shield, 96.50% was attenuated, whereas, for the measured result only 10.17% was attenuated in the absence of the shield and 89.83% was attenuated in the presence of the shield before reaching the radiographer’s stand. The unit of radiation exposure was converted to that of equivalent dose and that of effective dose in order to assess the radiographer’s safety level behind the shield. It was found that, the equivalent/effective dose is as low as to be accepted according to the policy of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), and within the NCRP recommended limit. This guaranteed the effectiveness of the lead shield of 1.5mm thickness in the x-ray energy range used in this study.Keywords: Lead shield, radiological protection, effectiveness of 1.5mm leadshield, presence of shield, absence of shield, radiographer’s safety.
Highlights
Evaluation of radiation protective devices in radiology departments is one of the practices that ensure radiation protection and staff and patients safety in hospitals
The results shows that, in the absence of the shield, only 11.82% of the radiation exposure was attenuated by the air space before reaching the radiographer’s stand, while in the presence of the shield, 96.50% was attenuated, whereas, for the measured result only 10.17% was attenuated in the absence of the shield and 89.83% was attenuated in the presence of the shield before reaching the radiographer’s stand
The equivalent/effective dose is as low as to be accepted according to the policy of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), and within the NCRP recommended limit
Summary
We made use of 300mA fixed x-ray machine room of size 27.7m2. The machine was Pleophos D Siemens Xray machine, and patients between 75 and 85 are attended for x-ray radiography every day. Other x-ray room and the x-ray machine tube’s parameters such as maximum continuous current, mAmax, maximum leakage radiation, XLmax, average applied peak voltage, kVp, scatter fraction, S, occupancy factor, T, primary used factor, Upri, secondary used factor, Usec, were determined. The Primary exposure incidents at the closest surface of the scatterer (the patient), X′p, was calculated using inverse square law for radiation intensity (radiation dose) (Bushberg, 2002; Barghava, 2011; Thayalan, 2014). The total weekly radiation dose incident at the position/external surface of the Lead Shield, Xinc, was considered to be the total radiation exposure due to the primary, the secondary and the leakage radiations and the weekly radiation dose at the control panel, in the absence of the shield (Xno-shield-1) were calculated using the equation (Bushberg, 2002; Thayalan, 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
