Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2018; 28(02): 258-262
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_374_17
Miscellaneous

A simple quality control tool for assessing integrity of lead equivalent aprons

Roshan S. Livingstone
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Anna Varghese
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations
Subject Editor: Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: Protective lead or lead-equivalent (Pbeq) aprons play a key role in providing necessary shielding from secondary radiation to occupational workers. Knowledge on the integrity of these shielding apparels during purchase is necessary to maintain adequate radiation safety. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the lead equivalence in aprons based on simple quality assessment tool. Materials and Methods: 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm lead and lead-free aprons from 6 manufacturers were assessed using a calibrated digital X-ray unit. The percentage attenuation values of the aprons were determined at 100 kVp using an ionization chamber and the pixel intensities were analyzed using digital radiographic images of lead apron, copper step wedge tool, and 2 mm thick lead. Results: Mean radiation attenuation of 90% and 97% was achieved in 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm lead or lead-free aprons respectively. The pixel intensities from 0.25 mm Pbeq apron correspond to 0.8–1.2 mm thickness of Cu while 0.5 mm Pbeq aprons correspond to 2.0–2.8 mm of Cu. Conclusion: Pixel intensity increased with increase in the thickness of copper step wedge indicating a corresponding increase in lead equivalence in aprons. It is suggestive that aprons should be screened for its integrity from the time of purchase using computed tomography (CT), fluoroscopy, or radiography. It is recommended that this simple test tool could be used for checking lead equivalence if any variation in contrast is seen in the image during screening.

Keywords

Attenuation - copper step wedge test tool - lead equivalent aprons - pixel intensity


Publication History

Article published online:
26 July 2021

© 2018. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hubbert TE, Vucich JJ, Armstrong MR. Lightweight aprons for protection against scattered radiation during fluoroscopy. Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 1079-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Medical and Dental Guidance notes: A good practice guide on all aspects of ionising radiation protection in the clinical environment. IPEM; York: 2002: 60-1
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Meisinger QC, Stahl CM, Andre MP, Kinney TB, Newton IG. Radiation Protection for the Fluoroscopy Operator and Staff. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 745-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kim SC, Choi JR, Jeon BK. Physical analysis of the shielding capacity for a lightweight apron designed for shielding low intensity scattering X-rays. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 27721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Warren-Forward H, Cardew P, Smith B, Clack L, McWhirter K, Johnson S. et al. A comparison of dose savings of lead and lightweight aprons for shielding of 99m-Technetium radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2007; 124: 89-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zuguchi M, Chida K, Taura M, Inaba Y, Ebata A, Yamada S. Usefulness of non-lead aprons in radiation protection for physicians performing interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 131: 531-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bushong SC. Radiologic Science for Technologists: Physics, Biology, and Protection. Mosby/Elsevier; 2008: 581-98
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Klein LW, Miller DL, Balter S, Laskey W, Haines D, Norbash A. et al. Occupational Health Hazards in the Interventional Laboratory: Time for a Safer Environment. Radiology 2009; 250: 538-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Moore B, van Sonnenberg E, Casola G, Novelline RA. The relationship between back pain and lead apron use in radiologists. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158: 191-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Webster EW. Experiments with Medium-Z Materials for Shielding Against Low-Energy X Rays. Radiology 1966; 86: 146
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Shymko MJ. Minimizing occupational exposure. Radiol Technol 1998; 70: 89-90
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Martin CJ, Magee JS. Assessment of eye and body dose for interventional radiologists, cardiologists, and other interventional staff. J Radiol Prot 2013; 33: 445-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 McCaffrey JP, Mainegra-Hing E, Shen H. Optimizing non-Pb radiation shielding materials using bilayers. Med Phys 2009; 36: 5586-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Christodoulou EG, Goodsitt MM, Larson SC, Darner KL, Satti J, Chan HP. Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter. Med Phys 2003; 30: 1033-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Finnerty M, Brennan PC. Protective aprons in imaging departments: Manufacturer stated lead equivalence values require validation. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 1477-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stam W, Pillay M. Inspection of lead aprons: Apractical rejection model. Health Phys 2008; 95 Suppl (02) S133-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lambert K, McKeon T. Inspection of lead aprons: Criteria for rejection. Health Phys 2001; 80: S67-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar