Calculating shielding requirements in diagnostic X-ray departments.

Petrantonaki, M; Kappas, C.; Efstathopoulos, Efstathios; Theodorakos, Y; Panayiotakis, George

doi:10.1259/bjr.72.854.10365070

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…NCRP 147 contains example calculations which use the total air‐kerma rate and the most penetrating workload distribution to obtain final barrier thickness. RadShield finds the barrier thickness required to attenuate the user specified workload distributions to the occupancy adjusted design goal (P/T) 1 , 10 , 12 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RadShield finds the barrier thickness required to attenuate the user specified workload distributions to the occupancy adjusted design goal (P/T). (1,10,12) RadShield calculates barrier thickness using an iterative method which employs the barrier transmission factor for each X-ray source, as described by Simpkin. (1,7) NCRP Report 147 gives logarithmic fitting parameters, α, β, and γ for lead, concrete, gypsum wallboard, wood, steel and glass for different workload spectra.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface

DeLorenzo

Yang

et al. 2016

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to introduce and describe the development of RadShield, a Java‐based graphical user interface (GUI), which provides a base design that uniquely performs thorough, spatially distributed calculations at many points and reports the maximum air‐kerma rate and barrier thickness for each barrier pursuant to NCRP Report 147 methodology. Semiautomated shielding design calculations are validated by two approaches: a geometry‐based approach and a manual approach. A series of geometry‐based equations were derived giving the maximum air‐kerma rate magnitude and location through a first derivative root finding approach. The second approach consisted of comparing RadShield results with those found by manual shielding design by an American Board of Radiology (ABR)‐certified medical physicist for two clinical room situations: two adjacent catheterization labs, and a radiographic and fluoroscopic (R&F) exam room. RadShield's efficacy in finding the maximum air‐kerma rate was compared against the geometry‐based approach and the overall shielding recommendations by RadShield were compared against the medical physicist's shielding results. Percentage errors between the geometry‐based approach and RadShield's approach in finding the magnitude and location of the maximum air‐kerma rate was within 0.00124% and 14 mm. RadShield's barrier thickness calculations were found to be within 0.156 mm lead (Pb) and 0.150 mm lead (Pb) for the adjacent catheterization labs and R&F room examples, respectively. However, within the R&F room example, differences in locating the most sensitive calculation point on the floor plan for one of the barriers was not considered in the medical physicist's calculation and was revealed by the RadShield calculations. RadShield is shown to accurately find the maximum values of air‐kerma rate and barrier thickness using NCRP Report 147 methodology. Visual inspection alone of the 2D X‐ray exam distribution by a medical physicist may not be sufficient to accurately select the point of maximum air‐kerma rate or barrier thickness.PACS number(s): 87.55.N, 87.52.‐g, 87.59.Bh, 87.57.‐s

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface

DeLorenzo

Yang

et al. 2016

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The proposed design limits reduced NCRP 49 levels by a factor of ten for controlled areas, and by a factor of five for non-controlled areas. Shielding to the dose limits of NCRP 116 and methodology presented in NCRP 49 generated barriers thicker than those currently in use in diagnostic facilities (Gray & Archer, 1994;Petrantonaki et al, 1999;Simpkin, 1987. On the other hand, the sufficiency of these barriers to reduce doses to the lower levels have been proven using evidence from the years of film badge records (Gray & Archer, 1994;Borasi & Ferretti, 1989;Costa & Caldas, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shielding Evaluation of Diagnostic X-Ray Rooms in Khartoum State

Alameen¹,

Khalid²,

Ali³

et al. 2017

GJHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the shielding of some conventional x-ray rooms in Khartoum state. This study is based on the shielding calculations stated in the NCRP report number 49. This is the first time in Sudan to evaluate the shielding of diagnostic x-ray rooms based on this report.The total number of conventional x- ray rooms included in this study is 9 and the main parameters recorded during the evaluation are the KVp, mAs, and distance from the x-ray source to the measuring points. The dose rate at some selected points both inside and outside each x-ray room have been recorded using two dosimeters.The result of the evaluation revealed that 75% of the tested controlled area and 71.4% of the uncontrolled areas passed the test and do comply with the recommended limiting doses. However, only one room was found to be well shielded for both controlled and uncontrolled areas. The maximum allowed dose rate in controlled and uncontrolled areas was taken equal to 5 mSv/year & 1 mSv/year respectively and as recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Calculations of the required shielding have been made for those areas which have not passed the tests and for lead and concrete.

show abstract

“…The general formalism used to calculate the shielding requirements is based on the following equation, originating from the models proposed by Simpkin 13 and Petranstonaki et al, 14…”

Section: A General Shielding Model Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A conversion method of air kerma from the primary, scatter, and leakage radiations to effective dose for calculating x‐ray shielding barriers in mammography

Kharrati

2005

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, a new approach has been introduced for derivation of the effective dose from air kerma to calculate shielding requirements in mammography facilities. This new approach has been used to compute the conversion coefficients relating air kerma to the effective dose for the mammography reference beam series of the Netherlands Metrology Institute Van Swinden Laboratorium, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and International Atomic Energy Agency laboratories. The results show that, in all cases, the effective dose in mammography energy range is less than 25% of the incident air kerma for the primary and the scatter radiations and does not exceed 75% for the leakage radiation.

show abstract

Calculating shielding requirements in diagnostic X-ray departments.

Cited by 16 publications

References 7 publications

RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface

RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface

Shielding Evaluation of Diagnostic X-Ray Rooms in Khartoum State

A conversion method of air kerma from the primary, scatter, and leakage radiations to effective dose for calculating x‐ray shielding barriers in mammography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About