DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Performance Evaluation of Radiation Protection Apron's

방사선방어 앞치마 성능 평가

  • Kang, Jong-gu (Department of Radiological Technology, Shingu College) ;
  • Kang, Byung-Sam (Department of Radiological Technology, Shingu College)
  • Received : 2019.09.30
  • Accepted : 2019.10.24
  • Published : 2019.10.31

Abstract

Radiation exposure is on the rise as the working hours of radiation workers increase. Accordingly, the importance of protection products for decreasing the dose of exposure has risen, and excellent X-ray shielding ability and light weight are required. The purpose of this study is to compare the Pb which use currently and other elements in order to reduce the exposure of workers to the most effective protection products. For experiment, we used the general X-ray equipment and angiography equipment, and obtained the Pb and apron's shielding rate. When the shielding rate of Pb and apron was compared in general X-ray equipment, the shielding rate was 95.1% for Pb 0.5 mm, 96.1% for apron 0.5 mmPb and 95.6% for Bi+W 0.5 mmPb. When compared the shielding rate of each aprons in angiography equipment, 0.5 mmPb apron was the highest as 96.4% and Bi+W 0.25 mmPb apron was the lowest as 90.2% at the 50 cm distance. The shielding rate of 0.5 mmPb apron was the highest as 95.7% and Bi+W 0.25 mmPb apron was the lowest as 85.9% at the 100 cm distance. As a result of evaluating the apron efficiency through this study, 0.5 mmPb apron showed the best shielding rate, but it was the heaviest apron. 0.35 mmPb apron and Bi+W 0.25 mmPb apron weighed light but had low shielding rate. Through the results of this experiment, it is recommended that radiation workers reduce radiation exposure by using more efficient protection products.

Keywords

References

  1. Ko SK, Kang BS. Shielding Effect of Radiation Protector for Interventional Procedure. Journal of Korean Society of Radiological Technology. 2007;30(3):213-8.
  2. Korea Centers for Disease Control. 2015 Report Occupational Radiation Exposure in Diagnostic Radiology in Korea, KCDC; 2016.
  3. Stern SH, Tucker SA, Gagne RM, Shope Jr TB. Estimated Benefits of Proposed Amendments to the FDA Radiation-Safety Standard for Diagnostic X-Ray Equipment. FDA Science Forum; 2001.
  4. Kim YK, Jang YI, Kim JM. Improvement of the shieldability and lightweight of a radiation protective apron. Journal of Korean Society of Radiological Technology. 2003;26(1):45-50.
  5. KS A 4025. Testing Method of Lead Equivalent for X-ray Protective Devices. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards; 2017.
  6. Choi BH, Kim YG, et al. The study of evaluation about the apron quality management and shield efficiency in 4 university laboratories of Dae-gu, Kyungpook area. Korean Journal of Digital Imaging in Medicine. 2013;15(1):47-54.
  7. Duncan JR, Balter S, Becker GJ, et al. Optimizing radiation use during fluoroscopic procedures: Proceddings from a multi disciplinary consensus panel. J Vasc Inter Radiol. 2011;22:425-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.12.008
  8. KFDA. Radiation Protection Guideline of Interventional Radiology Radiation safety management series No 11. KFDA; 2006.
  9. Nam YH, Oh SA, et al. Absorbed Dose and Image Quality Assessment Using DUKE Phantom and Added Filtration at Chest X-ray in DR Environment. JRTS. 2016;3:56-62.
  10. Yoo SJ, Lim CS, Sim, KR. A study on performance evaluation of Apron by shielding rate and uniformity. Journal of Korea Safety Management & Scie. 2015;17(1):103-9. https://doi.org/10.12812/ksms.2015.17.1.103