ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE EQUIVALENTS Hp(0.07) OF MEDICAL STAFF OCCUPATIONALLY EXPOSED TO IONIZING RADIATION IN 2012

Abstract

Background: The paper presents the Nofer Institutes of Occupational Medicine in Łódź's results of the assessment of individual dose equivalents Hp(0.07) of medical staff exposed to X-rays in Poland in 2012. In addition, the collected data was analysed in terms of types of medical units performing medical procedures and the categorization of personnel. Material and Methods: Dosimetric service was provided for medical staff of interventional radiology departments occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation in terms of individual dose equivalents Hp(0.07). In 2012, personal dosimetry Hp(0.07) determinations were performed by the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine in Łódź and covered 2044 employees from 174 health facilities. The determinations were performed using thermoluminescence dosimetry according to the procedure accredited by the Polish Centre for Accreditation (document number AB 327). The measurements were performed using ring-dosimeters in the periods of 1 or 2 months. Results: Mean annual individual dose equivalent Hp(0.07) in 2012 was equal to 3.3 mSv (annual limit for Hp(0.07) is 500 mSv). The average value of annual individual dose equivalent Hp(0.07) decreased comparing to the previous year. In 2012, no single case of exceeding the annual limit for Hp(0.07) was reported. Data stored in the file indicates that more than 96% of all of the annual doses did not exceed the level of 10 mSv. Conclusions: The analysis of data on occupational exposure to ionizing radiation confirms a stable level of exposure and satisfactory radiological protection in interventional radiology facilities monitored by the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine in Łódź in

Application of Bayesian statistics for radiation dose assessment in mixed beta-gamma fields

“…For example, a significant limitation is that the investigated radiation might show energies which were not used in the calibration procedure. Problems also occur in extremity (Brasik et al 2006 ; Papierz et al 2014 ) and eye lens dosimetry, where usually only one TLD pellet is available (Carinou et al 2015 ), and in cases of accidental overexposures, when it is not possible to determine the calibration factors necessary to convert counts to dose.…”