A FOLLOW-UP STUDY ON THE LEAD EQUIVALENCE AND INTEGRITY OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT USED IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

Abstract

Introduction. Personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE) means such vests and skirts, aprons, thyroid collars and other means reduce radiation exposure of personnel working with X-rays and gamma ray sources. The composition of PRPE worn by X-ray personnel to shield against secondary radiation is changing. Lead is being replaced by either lead-free or composite (lead with other high atomic numbered elements) materials. In clinical practice, PRPEs with different lead equivalents are used. PRPE from lead or lead-equivalent material (LEM) are essential in providing necessary shielding from secondary radiation exposure to workers.

Methods. Quality assessment of the PRPE was performed evaluating integrity and lead equivalence of more than 800 units, 0.25, 0.35, 0.5 and 1 mm LEM provided by ten manufacturers in the period 2022–2024.

Results. Siemens Luminos dRF MAX 3D radiography, Philips Incisive CT computed tomography, Philips BV Endura mobile C-arm, and FLOWD 8020 mobile protective clothing testing X-ray units were used for obtaining images of PRPE for checking the integrity and lead equivalence. A calibrated solid-state meter Piranha R&F/M 657 with RTI Dose Probe was used for checking the radiation attenuation. In order to check the integrity, PRPE were categorized into four categories: I (good quality), II (small cracks), III (large cracks not in critical areas and smaller than 5 cm2), IV (very large cracks, cracks in critical areas, bigger than 5 cm2). PRPE lead equivalence deviations were analysed and grouped into three categories: DI (less than 5 %), DII (less than 10 %), DIII (more than 10 %).

Conclusions. The results of the integrity tests showed that about 85 % of the PRPE were in good quality. The analysis of lead equivalence deviations showed that about 76 % of the PRPE met the criteria for category DI. The aim of the study was to evaluate the lead equivalence and the integrity of the PRPE used in clinical practice with different screening methods.

References

Aral, N., Duch, M.A., & Ardanuy, M. (2020). Material characterization and Monte Carlo simulation of lead and non-lead X-ray shielding materials. Radiat. Phys. Chem., 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radph yschem.2020.108892

Goldstein, J.A. (2015). Orthopedic afflictions in the interventional laboratory: tales from the working wounded. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 65(8), 827–829. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jacc.2014.12.020

Kellens, P.J., De Hauwere, A., Gossye, T. et al. (2022). Integrity of personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE): a 4-year longitudinal follow-up study. Insights Imaging, 13, 183. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01323-3

Klein, L.W., Miller, D.L., Balter, S., Laskey, W., Haines, D., Norbash, A. et al. (2009). Occupational Health Hazards in the Interventional Laboratory: Time for a Safer Environment. Radiology, 250, 538–44.

Klein, L.W., Miller, D.L., Balter, S. et al. (2018, Jan. 4). Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. Catheterizaion & Cardiovascular Intervventions. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21772

Kim, S.C., Choi, J.R., & Jeon, B.K. (2016). Physical analysis of the shielding capacity for a lightweight apron designed for shielding low intensity scattering X‑rays. Sci. Rep., 6, 27721.

Lambert, K., & McKeon, T. (2001). Inspection of lead aprons: criteria for rejection. Health Phys., 80 (5 SUPPL.), S67–S69. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200105001-00008

McCaffrey, J.P., Shen, H., Downton, B., & Mainegra-Hing, E. (2007). Radiation attenuation by lead and nonlead materials used in radiation shielding garments. Med. Phys., 34(2), 530–537. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2426404

Moore, B., van Sonnenberg, E., Casola, G., & Novelline, R.A. (1992). The relationship between back pain and lead apron use in radiologists. Am. J. Roentgenol.,158, 191–3.

Peters, S.M.B., Zweers, D., de Lange, F., & Mourik, J.E.M. (2017). Lead composite vs. nonlead protective garments: which are better? A multivendor comparison. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 175(4), 460–465. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ rpd/ncw373

Stam, W., & Pillay, M. (2008). Inspection of Lead Aprons: A Practical Rejection Model. Health Physics, 95(2), p. S133–S136, August. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000314763.19226.86

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). (2021). Report to general assembly. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, 2020/2021, Vol. I.

Warren‑Forward, H., Cardew, P., Smith, B., Clack, L., McWhirter, K., Johnson, S. et al. (2007). A comparison of dose savings of lead and lightweight aprons for shielding of 99m‑Technetium radiation. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, 124, 89–96.

Webster, E.W. (1966). Experiments with Medium‑Z Materials for Shielding Against Low‑Energy X-Rays. Radiology, 86, 146.

Yaffe, M.J., Mawdsley, G.E., Lilley, M., Servant, R., & Reh, G. (1991). Composite materials for X-ray protection. Health Phys., 60(5), 661–664. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-199105000-00004

Zuguchi, M., Chida, K., Taura, M., Inaba, Y., Ebata, A., & Yamada, S. (2008). Usefulness of non‑lead aprons in radiation protection for physicians performing interventional procedures. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, 131, 531–534.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645317717209