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

被引:73
作者
Finnerty, M [1 ]
Brennan, PC [1 ]
机构
[1] UCD Sch Diagnost Imaging, Dublin 4, Ireland
关键词
radiation dose; defects; transmission;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-004-2571-2
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100207 [影像医学与核医学]; 1009 [特种医学];
摘要
The composition of protective aprons worn by X-ray personnel to shield against secondary radiation is changing. Lead is being replaced by either lead-free or composite (lead with other high atomic numbered elements) materials. These newer aprons are categorised by manufacturers in terms of lead equivalent values, but it is unclear how these stated values compare with actual lead equivalent values. In this work, the actual lead equivalence of 41 protective aprons from four manufacturers, all specified as having 0.25 mm lead equivalence, were investigated with transmission experiments at 70 and 100 kVp. All aprons were in Current use. The aprons were screened for defects, and age, weight and design was recorded along with details of associated quality assurance (QA). Out of the 41 protective aprons examined for actual lead equivalence, 73% were outside tolerance levels, with actual levels in some aprons demonstrating less than half of the nominal values. The lack of compatibility between actual and nominal lead equivalent values was demonstrated by aprons from three of the four manufacturers investigated. The area of the defects found on screening of the protective aprons were within recommendations. The results highlight the need for acceptancy and ongoing checks of protective aprons to ensure that radiation exposure of imaging personnel is kept to a minimum.
引用
收藏
页码:1477 / 1484
页数:8
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]
Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter [J].
Christodoulou, EG ;
Goodsitt, MM ;
Larson, SC ;
Darner, KL ;
Satti, J ;
Chan, HP .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (06) :1033-1038
[2]
DEFECTS IN NEW PROTECTIVE APRONS [J].
GLAZE, S ;
LEBLANC, AD ;
BUSHONG, SC .
RADIOLOGY, 1984, 152 (01) :217-218
[3]
Graham D. T., 1996, PRINCIPLES RADIOLOGI
[4]
LIGHTWEIGHT APRONS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST SCATTERED RADIATION DURING FLUOROSCOPY [J].
HUBBERT, TE ;
VUCICH, JJ ;
ARMSTRONG, MR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1993, 161 (05) :1079-1081
[5]
*I PHYS ENG MED, 2002, MED GUID NOT
[6]
International Electrotechnical Commission, 1994, 13311 IEC
[7]
Reference dose levels for patients undergoing common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Irish hospitals [J].
Johnston, DA ;
Brennan, PC .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2000, 73 (868) :396-402
[8]
Inspection of lead aprons: Criteria for rejection [J].
Lambert, K ;
McKeon, T .
HEALTH PHYSICS, 2001, 80 (05) :S67-S69
[9]
Implementation of an X-ray radiation protective equipment inspection program [J].
Michel, R ;
Zorn, MJ .
HEALTH PHYSICS, 2002, 82 (02) :S51-S53
[10]
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BACK PAIN AND LEAD APRON USE IN RADIOLOGISTS [J].
MOORE, B ;
VANSONNENBERG, E ;
CASOLA, G ;
NOVELLINE, RA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1992, 158 (01) :191-193