Radiation worker categorization and exposure monitoring practices must be proportional to the current working environment.
Purpose
To analyze exposure data of Finnish radiological workers and to estimate the magnitude and frequency of their potential occupational radiation exposure, and to propose appropriate radiation worker categorization.
Material and Methods
Estimates of the probabilities of annual effective doses exceeding certain levels were obtained by calculating the survival function of a lognormal probability density function (PDF) fitted in the measured occupational exposure data.
Results
The estimated probabilities of exceeding annual effective dose limits of 1 mSv, 6 mSv, and 20 mSv were in the order of 1:200, 1:10,000, and 1:500,000 per person, respectively.
Conclusion
It is very unlikely that the Category B annual effective dose limit of 6 mSv could even potentially be exceeded using modern equipment and appropriate working methods. Therefore, in terms of estimated effective dose, workers in diagnostic and interventional radiology could be placed into Category B in Finland. Current national personal monitoring practice could be replaced or supplemented using active personal dosimeters, which offer more effective means for optimizing working methods.
RehaniMMCiraj-BjelacOVanoEet al.ICRP Publication 117. Radiological protection in fluoroscopically guided procedures performed outside the imaging department. Ann ICRP2010; 40: 1–102.
3.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP2007; 37: 1–332.
4.
International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA safety standards for protecting people and the environment. Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards. General safety requirements part 3. Vienna: IAEA, 2014. Available at: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1578_web-57265295.pdf (accessed 18 February 2018).
European Commission. Technical Recommendations for monitoring individuals occupationally exposed to external radiation. Radiation Protection no 160. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2009. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/160.pdf (accessed 19 February 2018).
7.
STUK - Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Monitoring of radiation exposure. Guide ST 7.1:6.1.3, Helsinki: STUK, 2014. Available at: http://www.finlex.fi/data/normit/31217/ST7-1e.pdf (accessed 18 February 2018).
8.
SiiskonenTTapiovaaraMKosunenAet al.Monte Carlo simulations of occupational radiation doses in interventional radiology. Br J Radiol2007; 80: 460–468.
9.
SchultzFWZoeteliefJ. Dosemeter readings and effective dose to the cardiologist with protective clothing in a simulated interventional procedure. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2008; 129: 311–315.
10.
KickenPJHKemerinkGJSchultzFWet al.Dosimetry of occupationally exposed persons in diagnostic and interventional arteriography part 2: assessment of effective dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry1999; 82: 105–114.
11.
LönnrothNHirvonen-KariMTimonenMet al.Transition in occupational radiation exposure monitoring methods in diagnostic and interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2012; 151: 58–66.
12.
Al-HajALagardeCS. Statistical analysis of historical occupational dose records at a large medical center. Health Physics2002; 83: 854–860.
13.
KimKPMillerDLBalterSet al.Occupational radiation doses to operators performing cardiac catheterization procedures. Health Physics2008; 94: 211–227.
14.
KortesniemiMSiiskonenTKelarantaAet al.Actual and potential radiation exposures in digital radiology: analysis of cumulative data, implications to worker classification and occupational exposure monitoring. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2017; 174: 141–146.
15.
IngwersenMDrabikAKulkaUet al.Physicians’ radiation exposure in the catheterization lab: does the type of procedure matter?JACC Cardiovasc Interv2013; 6: 1095–1102.
16.
PantosIKoukoravaCNirgianakiEet al.Radiation exposure of the operator during cardiac catheter ablation procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2012; 150: 306–311.
17.
OgundareFOBalogunFA. Analysis of occupational doses of workers on the dose registry of the Federal Radiation Protection Service in 2000 and 2001. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2003; 103: 57–62.
SpechtRPBrodskyA. Log-normal distributions of occupational exposure to medical personnel. Health Physics1976; 31: 160–163.
20.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Implications for Occupational Radiation Protection of the New Dose Limit for the Lens of the Eye. Vienna: IAEA, 2013. Available at: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1731_web.pdf (accessed 19 February 2018).
21.
FarahJStruelensLDabinJet al.A correlation study of eye lens dose and personal dose equivalent for interventional cardiologists. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2013; 157: 561–569.
22.
PrincipiSGinjaumeMDuchMAet al.Influence of dosemeter position for the assessment of eye lens dose during interventional cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2015; 164: 79–83.
23.
UrbonieneASadzevicieneEZiliukasJ. Assessment of eye lens doses for workers during interventional radiology procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2015; 165: 299–303.
24.
VanoESanchezRMFernandezJM. Estimation of staff lens doses during interventional procedures. Comparing cardiology, neuroradiology and interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2015; 165: 279–283.
Bacchim NetoFAAlvesAFFMascarenhasYMet al.Occupational radiation exposure in vascular interventional radiology: A complete evaluation of different body regions. Physica Medica2016; 32: 1019–1024.
28.
DauerLT. Exposed medical staff: challenges, available tools, and opportunities for improvement. Health Physics2014; 106: 217–224.
29.
HeuschPKröpilPBuchbenderCet al.Radiation exposure of the radiologist’s eye lens during CT-guided interventions. Acta Radiol2014; 55: 86–90.
