3.8 Article

Evaluation of the effectiveness of X-ray protective aprons in experimental and practical fields

Journal

RADIOLOGICAL PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 158-166

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12194-013-0246-x

Keywords

Analysis of covariance; Computed tomography; Interventional radiology; Protective apron; Radiation protection; X-ray transmission rates

Funding

  1. Hokkaido Radiological Technology Study from the Hokkaido meeting of the Japanese Society of Radiological Technology
  2. Akiyoshi Ohtsuka Fellowship of the Japanese Society of Radiological Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few practical evaluation studies have been conducted on X-ray protective aprons in workplaces. We examined the effects of exchanging the protective apron type with regard to exposure reduction in experimental and practical fields, and discuss the effectiveness of X-ray protective aprons. Experimental field evaluations were performed by the measurement of the X-ray transmission rates of protective aprons. Practical field evaluations were performed by the estimation of the differences in the transit doses before and after the apron exchange. A 0.50-mm lead-equivalent-thick non-lead apron had the lowest transmission rate among the 7 protective aprons, but weighed 10.9 kg and was too heavy. The 0.25 and 0.35mm lead-equivalent-thick non-lead aprons differed little in the practical field of interventional radiology. The 0.35-mm lead apron had lower X-ray transmission rates and transit doses than the 0.25-mm lead-equivalent-thick non-lead apron, and each of these differences exceeded 8 % in the experimental field and approximately 0.15 mSv/month in the practical field of computed tomography (p< 0.01). Therefore, we concluded that the 0.25-mm lead-equivalentthick aprons and 0.35-mm lead apron are effective for interventional radiology operators and computed tomography nurses, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available