No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
On the (f)utility of measuring the lead equivalence of protective garments
1. J. A. Goldstein, S. Balter, M. Cowley, J. Hodgson, and L. W. Klein, “Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: Prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice,” Cathet. Cardiovasc. Interv. 63, 407–411 (2004).
2. B. Moore, E. vanSonnenberg, G. Casola, and R. A. Novelline, “The relationship between back pain and lead apron use in radiologists,” Am. J. Roentgenol. 158, 191–193 (1992).
4. E. W. Webster, “Addendum to ‘Composite materials for x-ray protection,’” Health Phys. 61, 917–918 (1991).
5. M. J. Yaffe, G. E. Mawdsley, M. Lilley, R. Servant, and G. Reh, “Composite materials for x-ray protection,” Health Phys. 60, 661–664 (1991).
6. E. W. Webster, “Experiments with medium-Z materials for shielding against low-energy X rays” Radiology 86, 146 (1966).
7. P. H. Murphy, Y. Wu, and S. A. Glaze, “Attenuation properties of lead composite aprons,” Radiology 186, 269–272 (1993).
8. E. G. Christodoulou, M. M. Goodsitt, S. C. Larson, K. L. Darner, J. Satti, and H. P. Chan, “Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter,” Med. Phys. 30, 1033–1038 (2003).
9. H. Eder, W. Panzer, and H. Schofer, “Is the lead-equivalent suited for rating protection properties of lead-free radiation protective clothing?,” Rofo. Fortschr. Geb. Rontgenstr. Neuen Bildgeb. Verfahr. 177, 399–404 (2005).
10. H. Eder, H. Schlattl, and C. Hoeschen, “X-ray protective clothing: Does DIN 6857-1 allow an objective comparison between lead-free and lead-composite materials?,” Rofo. Fortschr. Geb. Rontgenstr. Neuen Bildgeb. Verfahr. 182, 422–428 (2010).
11. M. Finnerty and P. C. Brennan, “Protective aprons in imaging departments: Manufacturer stated lead equivalence values require validation,” Eur. Radiol. 15, 1477–1484 (2005).
12. J. P. McCaffrey, E. Mainegra-Hing, and H. Shen, “Optimizing non-Pb radiation shielding materials using bilayers,” Med. Phys. 36, 5586–5594 (2009).
13. J. P. McCaffrey, H. Shen, B. Downton, and E. Mainegra-Hing, “Radiation attenuation by lead and nonlead materials used in radiation shielding garments,” Med. Phys. 34, 530–537 (2007).
14. T. Pichler, T. Schopf, and O. Ennemoser, “Radiation protection clothing in X-ray diagnostics: Comparison of attenuation equivalents in narrow beam and inverse broad-beam geometry,” Rofo. Fortschr. Geb. Rontgenstr. Neuen Bildgeb. Verfahr. 183, 470–476 (2011).
15. E. Schmid, W. Panzer, H. Schlattl, and H. Eder, “Emission of fluorescent x-radiation from non-lead based shielding materials of protective clothing: A radiobiological problem?,” J. Radiol. Prot. 32, N129–N139 (2012).
16. T. E. Hubbert, J. J. Vucich, and M. R. Armstrong, “Lightweight aprons for protection against scattered radiation during fluoroscopy,” Am. J. Roentgenol. 161, 1079–1081 (1993).
17. International Electrotechnical Commission, “Protective devices against diagnostic medical X-radiation - Part 1: Determination of attenuation properties of materials,” IEC 61331-1, 1st ed. (IEC, Geneva, 1994).
18. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, “Radiation dose management for fluoroscopically-guided interventional medical procedures,” NCRP Report No. 168 (NCRP, Bethesda, MD, 2011).
19. ASTM International, “Standard test method for determining the attenuation properties in a primary x-ray beam of materials used to protect against radiation generated during the use of x-ray equipment,” Standard F2547-06 (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006).
Article metrics loading...
Protective garments incorporating lead (Pb) or other moderate to high atomic number elements are a necessary radiation protection tool. However, as lead has been replaced by other elements, verifying manufacturers’ claims regarding the lead equivalence of such garments has become nearly impossible, and current standards only require measurement of attenuation or lead equivalence at a single beam quality. A garment may provide a high degree of protection at the specified beam quality, but underperform at others. The authors sought to measure the lead equivalence of several protective garments and propose a better method for quantifying the protective value of garments.
The authors measured the penetration of primary and scattered radiation through lead sheets and three protective garments of nominal 0.5 mm Pb equivalence, one lead and two lead-free. Penetration was measured using beams of nominal 60, 80, 100, and 120 kVp. Primary penetration through protective garments at 70 kVp was also measured. A lead-lined enclosure was constructed for measuring scatter penetration, as instruments must be protected from stray radiation when measuring low-level penetration of scattered radiation. Using polynomial least-squares fits to the measured data of penetration through lead sheets, the authors determined the lead equivalence of the protective garments across a range of beam qualities.
The lead garment was 0.5 mm Pb equivalent across all beam qualities evaluated. While the maximum lead equivalence of the lead-free garments did occur at the manufacturer-specified beam quality, neither garment was 0.5 mm Pb equivalent at the specified beam quality. The lead equivalence of the lead-free garments was a strong function of beam quality and nature of the radiation, i.e., primary or scattered. The lead equivalence of the lead-free garments in primary beams ranged from 0.40 to 0.47 mm Pb equivalent and in scattered beams ranged from 0.37 to 0.46 mm Pb equivalent. The penetration through one lead-free garment at 60 kVp was 478% higher than the penetration through the lead garment. The authors have also provided linear fits of radiation penetration through lead as a function of half-value layer. It is likely that assessment of protective value can be performed using primary beams matched to the spectra of scattered beams. The authors propose the diagnostic radiation index of protection (DRIP), a weighted sum of the percentage of radiation penetration across a range of beam qualities, as a more robust method for specifying the protective value of garments.
The protective value of garments from both primary and scattered radiation is a strong function of beam quality. Assessment of the protective value should be performed across a range of beam qualities. Methods for performing such assessment must be developed and must specify beam qualities, measurement geometry, and the appropriate weighting across the beam quality range for different applications.
Full text loading...
Most read this month