Radiation Shielding for Diagnostic Radiology, 2nd Edition

Sutton, D.; Martin, C J; Williams, J. Raymond; Peet, Debbie

doi:10.1259/book.9780905749747

Cited by 32 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The secondary scatter radiation that is incident on the ceiling and walls of an x-ray room comprises scatter from the patient and leakage from the x-ray tube. The leakage fluence is lower than the scattered by a factor of more than ten and, despite the spectrum being harder because of transmission through the tube housing containing 2-3 mm of lead, can be neglected without serious error (Sutton et al 2012). The scattered fluence varies with scattering angle (Williams 1996, McVey and Weatherburn 2004, McVey 2006.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scattered fluence varies with scattering angle (Williams 1996, McVey and Weatherburn 2004, McVey 2006. The spectra of x-rays back scattered from a patient's skin will be softer than that of the primary beam, while that in the forward direction will be harder but of lower fluence (Sutton et al 2012). For CT scans the scattered radiation will be a mixture of scatter from all orientations of the x-ray beam, while for interventional procedures the scattering angle will be predominantly between 0 • and 90 • on the ceiling and between 45 • and 135 • on the wall.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Derivation of factors for estimating the scatter of diagnostic x-rays from walls and ceiling slabs

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computed tomography (CT) scanning rooms and interventional x-ray facilities with heavy workloads may require the installation of shielding to protect against radiation scattered from walls or ceiling slabs. This is particularly important for the protection of those operating x-ray equipment from within control cubicles who may be exposed to radiation scattered from the ceiling over the top of the protective barrier and round the side if a cubicle door is not included. Data available on the magnitude of this tertiary scatter from concrete slabs are limited. Moreover, there is no way in which tertiary scatter levels can be estimated easily for specific facilities. There is a need for a suitable method for quantification of tertiary scatter because of the increases in workloads of complex x-ray facilities. In this study diagnostic x-ray air kerma levels scattered from concrete and brick walls have been measured to verify scatter factors. The results have been used in a simulation of tertiary scatter for x-ray facilities involving summation of scatter contributions from elements across concrete ceiling slabs. The majority of the ceiling scatter air kerma to which staff behind a barrier will be exposed arises from the area between the patient/x-ray tube and the staff. The level depends primarily on the heights of the ceiling and protective barrier. A method has been developed to allow tertiary scatter levels to be calculated using a simple equation based on a standard arrangement for rooms with different ceiling and barrier heights. Coefficients have been derived for a CT facility and an interventional suite to predict tertiary scatter levels from the workload, so that consideration can be given to the protection options available.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Derivation of factors for estimating the scatter of diagnostic x-rays from walls and ceiling slabs

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The designer is uncomfortable with this result and specifies Code 5 lead plasterboard instead to allow for possible future changes to equipment or workload. The change in lead thickness from 1.8 to 2.24 mm will result in lowering the yearly exposure to the three staff from 0.3 to 0.1 mSv/yr 12 for the life-time of the CT scanner, which can be taken as 7 years. 13 Using a disproportion factor of 3, the maximum ALARP cost of this intervention would be £2205.…”

Section: Application To Radiation Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ALARP: when does reasonably practicable become rather pricey?

Kotre

2022

The British Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 require employers to restrict radiation doses to their employees and the public to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). This article looks at the boundary between what might be considered to be reasonable and unreasonable in protecting staff and the general public in the field of hospital-based diagnostic radiology. A simple test for locating this boundary based on a cost-benefit approach is devised and its use illustrated using hospital-based radiation protection examples. It is concluded that a cost-benefit calculation based on the legal definition of ALARP may have some use in the support of radiation protection decision-making in the hospital environment, but only within the context of existing legal, practical and ethical considerations.

show abstract

“…In the US, concepts of controlled and supervised areas have been developed; the controlled area is restricted to the access of radiation worker and has an annual dose constraint of 5 mSv [1,2]. The supervised area is for non-radiation workers and members of the public and has a more stringent constraint of 1 mSv per year [1,2] whereas, in the UK system, a universal dose constraint of 0.3 mSv per year could be applied to all areas [8]. As detailed in section 4.2, additional considerations should be given to the locations of radiationsensitive equipment.…”

Section: Design Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the AAPM 108 report [3], the shielding requirements for PET facilities are specified in terms of effective dose by the federal code of regulations 10 CFR20 [9]. In nuclear medicine, however, a formal consensus is yet to be reached, individual groups have proposed the use of air kerma [8], equivalent dose to soft tissue [4,10,11] or ambient equivalent dose [12,13] in shielding calculation. To be in line with the AAPM 108 report [3] and the ICRP dose limits, the authors aim to apply the effective dose as the dose quantity of choice for nuclear medicine shielding considerations.…”

Section: Design Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shielding commissioning factors in nuclear medicine facilities

Salehzahi¹,

Tse²

2020

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the essential considerations in planning and designing nuclear medicine departments. There are four proposed categories to consider as ‘shielding commissioning factors’ (SCF). The first SCF: ‘Patient flow optimisation and workload’ emphasises the importance of carefully considering patient flow in the departmental design, which would impact the cost of the shielding and the management of radioactive patients. The second SCF: ‘Equipment and space allocation’ discusses the principles of space allocations in the department for cost-effective designs. The third SCF: ‘Shielding calculation methods’ reviews the methodologies of shielding calculations in nuclear medicine to offer a standardised approach. The fourth SCF: ‘Shielding integrity’ reviews the plan to inspect, eyewitness and verify shielding integrity. All discussions were supplemented by practical examples. Overall, this article aims to be a practical manual which health or medical physicists can use when providing counsels to the design committee.

show abstract

Radiation Shielding for Diagnostic Radiology, 2nd Edition

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

Derivation of factors for estimating the scatter of diagnostic x-rays from walls and ceiling slabs

Derivation of factors for estimating the scatter of diagnostic x-rays from walls and ceiling slabs

ALARP: when does reasonably practicable become rather pricey?

Shielding commissioning factors in nuclear medicine facilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About