Eye lens monitoring for interventional radiology personnel: dosemeters, calibration and practical aspects of H p (3) monitoring. A 2015 review

Author： Carinou Eleftheria Ferrari Paolo Gingaume Merce O’Connor Una Carinou Eleftheria Carinou Eleftheria

Publisher： IOP Publishing

E-ISSN： 1361-6498|35|3|R17-R34

ISSN： 0952-4746

Source： Journal of Radiological Protection, Vol.35, Iss.3, 2015-09, pp. : R17-R34

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

A thorough literature review about the current situation on the implementation of eye lens monitoring has been performed in order to provide recommendations regarding dosemeter types, calibration procedures and practical aspects of eye lens monitoring for interventional radiology personnel. Most relevant data and recommendations from about 100 papers have been analysed and classified in the following topics: challenges of today in eye lens monitoring; conversion coefficients, phantoms and calibration procedures for eye lens dose evaluation; correction factors and dosemeters for eye lens dose measurements; dosemeter position and influence of protective devices. The major findings of the review can be summarised as follows: the recommended operational quantity for the eye lens monitoring is H p (3). At present, several dosemeters are available for eye lens monitoring and calibration procedures are being developed. However, in practice, very often, alternative methods are used to assess the dose to the eye lens. A summary of correction factors found in the literature for the assessment of the eye lens dose is provided. These factors can give an estimation of the eye lens dose when alternative methods, such as the use of a whole body dosemeter, are used. A wide range of values is found, thus indicating the large uncertainty associated with these simplified methods. Reduction factors from most common protective devices obtained experimentally and using Monte Carlo calculations are presented. The paper concludes that the use of a dosemeter placed at collar level outside the lead apron can provide a useful first estimate of the eye lens exposure. However, for workplaces with estimated annual equivalent dose to the eye lens close to the dose limit, specific eye lens monitoring should be performed. Finally, training of the involved medical staff on the risks of ionising radiation for the eye lens and on the correct use of protective systems is strongly recommended.