scholarly journals Using Monte Carlo methods for Hp(0.07) values assessment during the handling of 18F-FDG

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-650
Author(s):  
Łukasz Albiniak ◽  
Małgorzata Wrzesień

Abstract The dose limit for the skin of the hand is typically converted to a surface of 1 cm2, which means that one needs to measure point doses in different places on the hand. However, the commonly used method of measuring doses on the hand, i.e., using a dosimetric ring including one or several thermoluminescent detectors worn at the base of a finger, is not adequate for manual procedures such as labeling or radiopharmaceutical injection. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to create and conduct a series of computer simulations that, by recreating the actual working conditions, would provide information on the values of ionizing radiation doses received by the most exposed parts of the hands of employees of radiopharmaceutical production facilities, as well as those of nurses during the injection of radiopharmaceuticals. The simulations were carried out using Monte Carlo radiation transport calculations. The Hp(0.07) personal dose equivalent values obtained for the fingertips of the index and middle fingers of nursing staff and chemists were within the range limited by the minimum and maximum Hp(0.07) values obtained as a result of dosimetric measurements carried out in diagnostic and production centers. Only in the case of the nurse’s fingertip, the simulated value of Hp(0.07 slightly exceeded the measured maximum Hp(0.07) value. The comparison of measured and simulated dose values showed that the largest differences in Hp(0.07) values occurred at the thumb tip, and for ring finger and middle finger of some of the nurses investigated.

2019 ◽  
Vol 185 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-200
Author(s):  
W J Garzón ◽  
H J Khoury

Abstract The objective of this study was to assess the radiation doses received by anaesthetists from prostatic artery embolization (PAE) procedures. Ten PAE procedures conducted in a reference hospital in the city of Recife, Brazil were investigated. Occupational dosimetry was performed using thermoluminescent dosemeters which were located next to the eyes, close to the thyroid (over the shielding), on the thorax (under the apron), on the wrist and on the feet of the physician’s body. The results showed that the anaesthetist’s feet received the highest doses followed by the eyes and the hands. In some complex PAE procedures the doses received by anaesthetists on the lens of the eyes and the effective dose were higher than those received by the main operator due to the anaesthetist’s close position to the patient’s table and the use of oblique projections. The personal dose equivalent Hp(3) per procedure for the anaesthetist’s right eyebrow ranged from 20.2 μSv to 568.3 μSv. This result shows that anaesthetists assisting PAE procedures can exceeds the annual eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv recommended by the ICRP with only one procedure per week if radiation protection measures are not implemented during procedures.


Author(s):  
A Almén ◽  
M Andersson ◽  
U O’Connor ◽  
M Abdelrahman ◽  
A Camp ◽  
...  

Abstract Exposure levels to staff in interventional radiology (IR) may be significant and appropriate assessment of radiation doses is needed. Issues regarding measurements using physical dosemeters in the clinical environment still exist. The objective of this work was to explore the prerequisites for assessing staff radiation dose, based on simulations only. Personal dose equivalent, Hp(10), was assessed using simulations based on Monte Carlo methods. The position of the operator was defined using a 3D motion tracking system. X-ray system exposure parameters were extracted from the x-ray equipment. The methodology was investigated and the simulations compared to measurements during IR procedures. The results indicate that the differences between simulated and measured staff radiation doses, in terms of the personal dose equivalent quantity Hp(10), are in the order of 30–70 %. The results are promising but some issues remain to be solved, e.g. an automated tracking of movable parts such as the ceiling-mounted protection shield.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-128
Author(s):  
Shuji Nagamine ◽  
Toshioh Fujibuchi ◽  
Yoshiyuki Umezu ◽  
Kazuhiko Himuro ◽  
Shinichi Awamoto ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1006-1015
Author(s):  
Negin Shagholi ◽  
Hassan Ali ◽  
Mahdi Sadeghi ◽  
Arjang Shahvar ◽  
Hoda Darestani ◽  
...  

Medical linear accelerators, besides the clinically high energy electron and photon beams, produce other secondary particles such as neutrons which escalate the delivered dose. In this study the neutron dose at 10 and 18MV Elekta linac was obtained by using TLD600 and TLD700 as well as Monte Carlo simulation. For neutron dose assessment in 2020 cm2 field, TLDs were calibrated at first. Gamma calibration was performed with 10 and 18 MV linac and neutron calibration was done with 241Am-Be neutron source. For simulation, MCNPX code was used then calculated neutron dose equivalent was compared with measurement data. Neutron dose equivalent at 18 MV was measured by using TLDs on the phantom surface and depths of 1, 2, 3.3, 4, 5 and 6 cm. Neutron dose at depths of less than 3.3cm was zero and maximized at the depth of 4 cm (44.39 mSvGy-1), whereas calculation resulted  in the maximum of 2.32 mSvGy-1 at the same depth. Neutron dose at 10 MV was measured by using TLDs on the phantom surface and depths of 1, 2, 2.5, 3.3, 4 and 5 cm. No photoneutron dose was observed at depths of less than 3.3cm and the maximum was at 4cm equal to 5.44mSvGy-1, however, the calculated data showed the maximum of 0.077mSvGy-1 at the same depth. The comparison between measured photo neutron dose and calculated data along the beam axis in different depths, shows that the measurement data were much more than the calculated data, so it seems that TLD600 and TLD700 pairs are not suitable dosimeters for neutron dosimetry in linac central axis due to high photon flux, whereas MCNPX Monte Carlo techniques still remain a valuable tool for photonuclear dose studies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1355-1360
Author(s):  
Clement Ionescu ◽  
Liana Simona Sbirna ◽  
Monica Daniela Mateescu ◽  
Clementina Sabina Moldovan ◽  
Sebastian Sbirna

2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 2497-2506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong Oh Kim ◽  
Jeffrey V. Siebers ◽  
Paul J. Keall ◽  
Mark R. Arnfield ◽  
Radhe Mohan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document