Advertisement
European Journal of Medical Physics
Advanced searchSave search
Original paper| Volume 64, P29-32, August 2019

Download started.

Ok

Evaluation of equivalent dose to eye lens through dose equivalent Hp(3)

Published:June 20, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.04.030
Evaluation of equivalent dose to eye lens through dose equivalent Hp(3)
Previous ArticleAims & Scope & Editorial Board
Next ArticleModel observers for Low Contrast Detectability evaluation in dynamic angiography: A feasible approach

      Highlights

      • •
        Hp(0.07) does not underestimates equivalent dose to eye lens obtained by Hp(3).
      • •
        Hp(0.07) can be used instead of Hp(3) to evaluate Hlens in exposed workers.
      • •
        Equivalent dose to eye lens of the analyzed workers was always smaller than 3 mSv.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      Individual dosimetry allows to quantify doses from ionizing radiation of exposed workers. Scientific and epidemiological evidences highlight the need for adequate measures for a greater protection of the eye and a reduction in annual doses. ICRP Publication 103, illustrating the operational dose quantity Hp(d) for the individual monitoring, proposes a depth d = 3 mm for eye lens monitoring, indicating that even the Hp(0.07) can be used. In this study, it was investigated if there are differences in the evaluation of the equivalent dose to eye lens (Hlens) using Hp(3) or Hp(0.07).

      Materials and methods

      A slab phantom calibration was performed by an Accredited Calibration Laboratory in terms of Hp(3) and Hp(0.07) using ext-rad TLD-100 (LiF:Mg,Ti) dosimeters. Hp(0.07) and Hp(3) were measured for 26 exposed workers to assess Hlens. The measuring took place monthly in 2017 to obtain both semestral and annual doses.

      Results

      Hlens(0.07) was always smaller than Hlens(3). However, the differences were not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney test, p > 0.05) for both semestral and annual doses. The percentage differences were 7 ± 3%, 6 ± 3% and 7 ± 2% for I semester, II semester and whole year, respectively. The mean underestimation index <10%, intra-class correlation coefficient >0.99, coefficient of variation <3% and the excellent correlation (R2 ≈ 0.999) for both semestral and annual doses highlighted that Hp(0.07) can be used to evaluate Hlens instead of Hp(3).

      Conclusions

      No statistical evidence was found that the use of Hp(0.07) underestimates the equivalent dose to eye lens obtained through Hp(3).

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Brown N.P.
        The lens is more sensitive to radiation than we had believed.
        Br J Ophthalmol. 1997; 81: 257
        View in Article
        • Ainsbury E.A.
        • Bouffler S.D.
        • Dorr W.
        • Graw J.
        • Muirhead C.R.
        • Edwards A.A.
        • et al.
        Radiation cataractogenesis: a review of recent studies.
        Radiat Res. 2009; 172: 1-9
        View in Article
        • Kleiman N.J.
        Radiation cataract.
        (Directorate-General for Energy and Transport. Radiation Protection Series 145 2007)in: New Insights in Radiation Risk and Basic Safety Standards. European Commission.2007: 81-95
        View in Article

      4. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Statement on Tissue Reactions and Early and Late Effects of Radiation in Normal Tissues and Organs – Threshold Doses for Tissue Reactions in a Radiation Protection Context. ICRP Publication 118. Ann ICRP; 2012;41: pp. 1–2.

        View in Article

      5. European Radiation Dosimetry Group e. V. (EURADOS). ORAMED: Optimization of Radiation Protection of Medical Staff. EURADOS Report 2012-02, Braunschweig, April 2012.

        View in Article

      6. Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM. Laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. OJ EU L13/1 2014;57: pp. 1–73.

        View in Article

      7. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37: pp. 2–4.

        View in Article

      8. ISO 12794. Nuclear energy – Radiation protection – Individual thermoluminescence dosemeters for extremities and eyes; 2000.

        View in Article

      9. ISO 4037. X and gamma reference radiation for calibrating dosemeters and doserate meters and for determining their response as a function of photon energy; 1996.

        View in Article

      10. Fantuzzi E, Bonarelli T. Personal monitoring service available at institute for radiation protection of ENEA (RT/AMB/99/13); 1999.

        View in Article
        • Fleiss J.F.
        Reliability of measurement.
        in: Fleiss J.F. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1986: 1-33
        View in Article
        • Mann H.B.
        • Whitney D.R.
        On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other.
        Ann Math Stat. 1947; 18: 50-60
        View in Article

      Article info

      Publication history

      Published online: June 20, 2019
      Accepted: April 30, 2019
      Received in revised form: April 15, 2019
      Received: August 10, 2018

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.04.030

      Copyright

      © 2019 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect

      The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the Cookie Preference Center for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties.


      RELX