The work package 3 of the ORAMED project, Collaborative Project (2008-11) supported by the European Commission within its seventh Framework Programme, is focused on the optimisation of the use of active personal dosemeters (APDs) in interventional radiology and cardiology (IR/IC). Indeed, a lack of appropriate APD devices is identified for these specific fields. Few devices can detect low-energy X rays (20-100 keV), and none of them are specifically designed for working in pulsed radiation fields. The work presented in this paper consists in studying the behaviour of some selected APDs deemed suitable for application in IR/IC. For this purpose, measurements under laboratory conditions, both with continuous and pulsed X-ray beams, and tests in real conditions on site in different European hospitals were performed. This study highlights the limitations of APDs for this application and the need of improving the APD technology so as to fulfil all needs in the IR/IC field

Bordy, J.M.

Clairand, I.

Daures, J.

Debroas, J.

Denozière, M.

Donadille, L.

Ginjaume, M.

Itié, C.

Koukorava, C.

Krim, S.

Lebacq, A.L.

Martin, P.

Sans-Mercé, M.

Struelens, L.

Tosic, M.

Vanhavere, F.

International audienceThe work package 3 of the ORAMED project, Collaborative Project (2008-11) supported by the European Commission within its seventh Framework Programme, is focused on the optimisation of the use of active personal dosemeters (APDs) in interventional radiology and cardiology (IR/IC). Indeed, a lack of appropriate APD devices is identified for these specific fields. Few devices can detect low-energy X rays (20-100 keV), and none of them are specifically designed for working in pulsed radiation fields. The work presented in this paper consists in studying the behaviour of some selected APDs deemed suitable for application in IR/IC. For this purpose, measurements under laboratory conditions, both with continuous and pulsed X-ray beams, and tests in real conditions on site in different European hospitals were performed. This study highlights the limitations of APDs for this application and the need of improving the APD technology so as to fulfil all needs in the IR/IC field

Bordy, Jean-Marc

Denozière, Marc

Lebacq, A.-L.

HAL Descartes

Active personal dosemeters in interventional radiology: Tests in laboratory conditions and in hospitals

Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN)

The work package 3 of the ORAMED project, Collaborative Project (2008–11) supported by the European Commission
within its seventh Framework Programme, is focused on the optimisation of the use of active personal dosemeters (APDs) in
interventional radiology and cardiology (IR/IC). Indeed, a lack of appropriate APD devices is identified for these specific
fields. Few devices can detect low-energy X rays (20–100 keV), and none of them are specifically designed for working in
pulsed radiation fields. The work presented in this paper consists in studying the behaviour of some selected APDs deemed
suitable for application in IR/IC. For this purpose, measurements under laboratory conditions, both with continuous and
pulsed X-ray beams, and tests in real conditions on site in different European hospitals were performed. This study highlights
the limitations of APDs for this application and the need of improving the APD technology so as to fulfil all needs in the
IR/IC field.Postprint (published version

Sans-Merce, M.

Lebacq, A.L

Clairand, Isabelle

Denoziere, M.

Ginjaume Egido, Mercè

Itie, C.

UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

The work package 3 of the ORAMED project, Collaborative Project (2008–11) supported by the European Commission

within its seventh Framework Programme, is focused on the optimisation of the use of active personal dosemeters (APDs) in

interventional radiology and cardiology (IR/IC). Indeed, a lack of appropriate APD devices is identified for these specific

fields. Few devices can detect low-energy X rays (20–100 keV), and none of them are specifically designed for working in

pulsed radiation fields. The work presented in this paper consists in studying the behaviour of some selected APDs deemed

suitable for application in IR/IC. For this purpose, measurements under laboratory conditions, both with continuous and

pulsed X-ray beams, and tests in real conditions on site in different European hospitals were performed. This study highlights

the limitations of APDs for this application and the need of improving the APD technology so as to fulfil all needs in the

IR/IC field

UPCommons

bordy, jean-marc

HAL-CEA

Serveur académique lausannois

ACTIVE PERSONAL DOSEMETERS IN INTERVENTIONALRADIOLOGY: TESTS IN LABORATORY CONDITIONS AND INHOSPITALSI. Clairand 1,*, J.-M. Bordy 2, J. Daures 2, J. Debroas 1, M. Denozie`re 2, L. Donadille 1, M. Ginjaume 3, C. Itie´ 1,C. Koukorava4, S. Krim 5, A.-L. Lebacq 5, P. Martin 6, L. Struelens 5, M. Sans-Merce´ 7, M. Tosic 7 andF. Vanhavere 51Institut de Radioprotection et de Suˆrete´ Nucle´aire (IRSN), BP17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France2CEA-LIST Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel (CEA-LNHB), CEA Saclay, 91191 Gif sur Yvette,France3Universitat Polite`cnica de Catalunya (UPC), Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain4Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), Ag. Paraskevi, 15310 Athens, Greece5Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK†CEN), Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium6Mirion Technologies (MGPI) SA Route d’Eyguie`res, 13113 Lamanon, France7Institut Universitaire de Radiophysique Applique´e (IRA), Grand Pre´ 1, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland*Corresponding author: isabelle.clairand@irsn.frThe work package 3 of the ORAMED project, Collaborative Project (2008–11) supported by the European Commissionwithin its seventh Framework Programme, is focused on the optimisation of the use of active personal dosemeters (APDs) ininterventional radiology and cardiology (IR/IC). Indeed, a lack of appropriate APD devices is identified for these specificfields. Few devices can detect low-energy X rays (20–100 keV), and none of them are specifically designed for working inpulsed radiation fields. The work presented in this paper consists in studying the behaviour of some selected APDs deemedsuitable for application in IR/IC. For this purpose, measurements under laboratory conditions, both with continuous andpulsed X-ray beams, and tests in real conditions on site in different European hospitals were performed. This study highlightsthe limitations of APDs for this application and the need of improving the APD technology so as to fulfil all needs in theIR/IC field.INTRODUCTIONThe optimisation of the use of active personal dose-meters (APDs) in interventional radiology and car-diology (IR/IC) is performed by one of the workpackages of the ORAMED project, a CollaborativeProject(1) (2008–11) supported by the EuropeanCommission within its seventh FrameworkProgramme.APDs are used for monitoring of occupationalexposure in many applications involving ionisingradiation, especially in the nuclear industry. Inhospital environments, they are much less used(2).In IR/IC, the possibility of assessing the doseand/or dose rate in real-time is particularly inter-esting since operators can receive relatively highdoses while standing close to the primary radi-ation field. In addition, an attractive feature ofthe APD is the possibility of having an alarmwhen a particular dose rate or dose value isexceeded. Due to the specificity of the X-rayfields used in IR/IC (low energies and pulsedfields), the current technology of APDs can beinadequate. This problem was highlighted duringtwo previous international intercomparisons(325).The work presented in this paper consisted in:† studying the real radiation field characteristicsencountered in IR/IC in terms of energy,angular distribution, dose rate and pulsecharacteristics;† making a selection of commercial APDs deemedsuitable for application in IR/IC according toseveral criteria, in particular the capacity torespond to photon energies down to 20 keV;† testing, under laboratory reference conditions,the dose, dose rate, energy and angular responseof the selected APDs;† studying, under laboratory reference conditions,the effect of the dose rate, pulse frequency andpulse width on the APD response;† performing tests in several European hospitalsunder workplace conditions.MATERIALS AND METHODSTypical fields in IR/ICThe typical fields and parameters encountered inIR/IC were gathered through questionnaires sent to# The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.comRadiation Protection Dosimetry (2011), Vol. 144, No. 1–4, pp. 453–458 doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq556Advance Access publication 24 December 2010hospitals, a literature search and quality controloutputs. Calculations of the dose equivalent rate atspecific points of interest and typical scatteredspectra were performed using the Monte Carlocodes MCNPX and PENELOPE(6, 7).Selection of APDsThe selection of commercial APD models was basedon the results from international intercompari-sons(3 – 5), and on their availability in differentEuropean countries. A prerequisite for considerationwas that each device should respond to photon ener-gies down to 20 keV. Following those criteria, sevencommercial APDs were selected (Figure 1): DMC2000XB (MGPi), EPD Mk2.3 (Thermo), EDM III(Dosilab), PM1621A (Polimaster), DIS-100 (Rados),EDD30 (Unfors) and AT3509C (Atomtex).Tests of APDs under laboratory conditionsThe tests with continuous X-ray fields were made intwo calibration laboratories (IRSN in France andSCK†CEN in Belgium). These tests were performedto determine the dose, energy, dose rate and angleresponses of the above-mentioned APDs. Twodevices of each type were always used. The followingreference fields were used (N-15, N-20, N-25, N-30,N-40, N-60, N-80, N-100, N-120, S-Cs and S-Co) asdefined in the ISO 4037–1(8) standard.The tests(9) in a pulsed mode were made at theFrench standard laboratory for ionising radiation(Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel—LNHB,CEA LIST in France). The influence of several par-ameters on the response of the APD in a pulsedmode was studied (70 kVp, HVL 5.17 mm Al):† the effect of the dose equivalent rate (i.e. themean dose equivalent rate during one pulse)from 1 to 55 Sv h21 for a pulse duration ¼ 20ms and a pulse frequency ¼ 10 s21 (tests wereperformed in a multi-pulsed mode);† the effect of the pulse frequency from 1 to 20 s21for a dose equivalent rate ¼ 1.8 Sv h21 and apulse duration ¼ 20 ms (tests were performed ina multi-pulsed mode);† the effect of the pulse width from 20 to 1000 msfor a dose equivalent rate ¼ 1.8 Sv h21 (tests wereperformed in single pulsed mode); for technicalreasons, tests under 20 ms were not possible.Tests of APDs under realistic conditions in hospitalsA series of tests were made in 10 European hospitalsduring routine practice. The interventional radiol-ogists and cardiologists were asked to wear, side byside and above their lead apron, an APD and anadditional passive dosemeter during daily practice.The dosemeters were worn during several interven-tions to integrate doses of at least 300 mSv for severaltypes of IR/IC procedures. The main objective ofthese tests was to compare the measurements per-formed by the active and passive dosemeters worn inroutine practice in hospitals, where all kinds of pro-cedures and parameter settings are used and withoutan accurate knowledge of the field parameters.For practical reasons, only four dosemeters weretested in these realistic conditions: DMC 2000XB,EPD Mk2.3, EDM III and DIS-100.RESULTSTypical fields in IR/ICThe compilation of data presented in Table 1 givesan overview of typical fields encountered in IR/ICindependently of the procedure considered.The instantaneous dose equivalent rate obtainedby quality control measurements using DAP-meters in the direct field at the level of the tableranges from 2 to 360 Sv h21. The dose equivalentrate in the scattered beam, at the level of theoperator for a tube position of 08 and 908, wasfound to range from 5.1023 to 10 Sv h21. InFigure 1. APDs tested in this study.Table 1. Typical field characteristics encountered in IR/IC.Parameter RangeHigh peak voltage 50–120 kVIntensity 5–1000 mAInherent Al equivalent filtration 4.5 mmAdditional Cu filtration 0.1–0.9 mmPulse duration 1–20 msPulse frequency 1–30 s21Dose equivalent rate in the directbeam (table)2–360 Sv h21Dose equivalent rate in thescattered beam (operator—abovethe lead apron)51023 to 10 Sv h21I. CLAIRAND ET AL.454addition, Monte Carlo calculations showed thatthe influence of the filtration on the scatteredspectra is very small. The energy of the scatteredspectra ranges from 20 to 100 keV.Response of APDs in a continuous modeIn a continuous mode, all APDs have a linearresponse with the dose. The energy responseFigure 2. Energy response of APDs in a continuous mode (for a dose equivalent rate Hp(10) around 10 mSv h21, and anintegrated dose equivalent around 0.5 mSv).Figure 3. The dose equivalent rate response of APDs in a continuous mode (except for PM1621A, whose responsediverged, the mean value of the two units of each APD type is represented).APDS IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY455(Figure 2) is within the interval (0.71–1.67) asrequired in the IEC 61526 standard(10) from 60Coenergy down to N-30 for all APDs except EDD30.For EDD30, these results are consistent with thefact that this APD is designed to work specifically atlow energy.Figure 3 illustrates the response of the selectedAPDs as a function of the dose equivalent rate.Most tested APDs provide a response for doseequivalent rates up to 10 Sv h21, except PM1621A,for which the response diverges rapidly from 1Sv h21, and EDD30, which saturates for doseFigure 4. Response of AT3509C at different photon radiation energies and angles of incidence in a continuous mode.Figure 5. The dose equivalent rate response of APDs in a pulsed mode for a pulse frequency equal to 10 s21.I. CLAIRAND ET AL.456equivalent rates above 2 Sv h21. The dose equivalentrate range requirement specified in IEC 61526(10) is1 Sv h21; thus all the dosemeters fulfil the IECstandard.All devices showed under and over-responses forlow-energy photons and high angles, but thesestayed within the limits of the IEC standard(10)except AT3509C (Figure 4) for which the angleresponse is inside this interval at 608 only fromN-80.Response of APDs in a pulsed modeEffect of the dose equivalent rateFor most APDs, the response decreases when thedose equivalent rate increases (Figure 5). For doseequivalent rates lower than 2 Sv h21, the responsesare, in general, close to 1 and fall down more or lessrapidly for higher dose rates, except DIS-100 whichgives a correct response up to 55 Sv h21.Effect of the pulse frequencyTable 2 sums up the effect of the pulse frequency asa percentage of variation in the APD responsebetween 1 and 20 s21. This variation is roughlyequal to 30 % for all devices, except PM1621A (nosignal) and EDD30 for which a saturation wasobserved from 2 Sv h21.Effect of the pulse widthWhen the pulse width is larger than 1 s, theresponses in the pulsed and continuous radiationfields are quite similar. No significant effect of thepulse width was observed.Table 2. Effect of the pulse frequency (1–20 s21): percentage of variation on the APD response for a dose equivalentrate51.8 Sv h21 and a pulse duration520 ms.APD DMC2000XBEPDMK2.3EDMIIIPM1621A DIS-100EDD30 AT3509CVariation on theAPD response (%)25–30 30–40 ,10 No signal 30 10 (1.8 Sv h21)saturation from 2 Svh2130 (10–20 s21) nosignal at 1 s21Figure 6. Distribution of the APD response compared with the passive dosemeter response in realistic conditions.APDS IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY457All results from the pulsed field tests show thatthe more continuous the field tends to be, that is, tosay the longer the pulses and the higher the fre-quency, the more satisfactory the behaviour of thedevices.These results show that it is important to add testsin a pulsed mode when type-testing APDs, and thusthe IEC 61526(10) standard should be revised.Response of APDs in hospitalsThe results of tests performed in hospitals are pre-sented in Figure 6 as the distribution of APD read-ings normalised to the passive dosemeter reading.With respect to passive dosemeters, DMC2000XB (median 0.65), EPD Mk2.3 (median 0.69),DIS-100 (median 0.78) and EDM III (median 0.81),on an average, present an under-response. The be-haviour of APDs is globally more satisfactory inhospitals than in laboratories because devices aremainly exposed to scattered fields.CONCLUSIONThe tests performed with continuous X-ray beamsshowed that all APDs have a satisfactory response atlower energies typical of IR/IC. Most APDs providea correct response for dose equivalent rates up to 10Sv h21, except PM1621A, for which the responsediverges rapidly from 1 Sv h21, and EDD30, whichsaturates above 2 Sv h21. However, the dose equival-ent rates in the direct beam can be much higherthan those tested here. So these tests cannot guaran-tee that the APDs will correctly measure the highdose equivalent rates in the direct beam.The study in a pulsed mode showed that, exceptPM1621A, whose display does not give any indi-cation, all APDs provide a reading. The tests per-formed in laboratory conditions with pulsed X-rayfields determined the effect of the dose rate, pulsefrequency and pulse width on the APD response.First, for most APDs, the response is generally equalto 1 for dose equivalent rates lower than 2 Sv h21,and decreases for higher dose rates, except DIS-100which gives a correct reading for high doserates. Second, for a pulse frequency ranging from 1to 20 s21, a variation of 30 %, on an average, isobserved for all APDs. Finally, no significant effectof the pulse width was observed.The measurements in hospitals confirmed anunder-response of APDs (median ranging from 0.65to 0.81) with respect to passive dosemeters.Since all selected APDs, except PM1621A,provide a reading in the pulsed mode, this meansthey could be used in routine monitoring at hospi-tals, provided correction factors are introduced(11).Some preliminary guidelines with recommendationson how to use APDs in practice were presented atIRPA2010(12).FUNDINGThis study has received funding from the EuropeanAtomic Energy Community’s 7th FrameworkProgram (FP7/2007–2011 - grant agreement no.211361).REFERENCES1. ORAMED. Available on http://www.oramed-fp7.eu/.2. Ginjaume, M., Bolognese-Milsztajn, T., Luszik-Bhadra, M., Vanhavere, F., Wahl, W. and Weeks, A.Overview of active personal dosemeters for individualmonitoring in the European Union. Radiat. Prot.Dosim. 125(1–4), 261–266 (2007).3. Clairand, I. et al. Intercomparison of active personaldosemeters in interventional radiology. Radiat. Prot.Dosim. 129(1–3), 340–345 (2008).4. Bordy, J.-M., Daures, J., Clairand, I., Denozie`re, M.,Donadille, L., d’Errico, F., Gouriou, J., Itie´, C. andStruelens, L. Evaluation of active personal dosemetersfor interventional radiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosim.131(1), 87–92 (2008).5. International Atomic Energy Agency. Intercomparisonof personal dose equivalent measurements by active per-sonal dosimeters. Final Report of a joint IAEAEURADOS Project. IAEA Report IAEA-TECDOC-1564. IAEA (2007).6. Pelowitz, D. B. (Ed.). MCNPX user’s manual,MCNPX version 2.5.0. Report LA-CP-05–0369. LosAlamos National Laboratory (2005).7. Salvat, F. PENELOPE 2006: A code system for MonteCarlo simulation of electron and photon transport. In:Workshop Proceedings Barcelona, Spain, 4–7 July2006, OECD 2006 NEA No. 6222, Nuclear EnergyAgency Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (2006).8. International Organization for Standardization. X andgamma reference radiation for calibrating dosemetersand doserate meters and for determining their responseas a function of photon energy—part 1: radiationcharacteristics and production methods. ISO 4037. ISO(1996).9. Denozie`re, M., Bordy, J.-M., Daures, J. and Lecerf, N.Pulsed X-rays for interventional radiology: test on activepersonal dosemeters (APD) European project FP7ORAMED WP3. Report CEA-R-6233 (CEA) (2009).10. International Electro Technical Commission (IEC).Radiation protection instrumentation. Measurement ofpersonal dose equivalent Hp(10) and Hp(0.07) for X,gamma, neutron and beta radiation: direct reading per-sonal dose equivalent and/or dose equivalent rate dose-meters. IEC 61526 (IEC) (2005).11. Ambrosi, P., Borowski, M. and Iwatschenko, M.Considerations concerning the use of counting active per-sonal dosemeters in pulsed fields of ionising radiation.Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 139, 483–493 (2010).12. Clairand, I. et al. Guidelines for the use of APDs ininterventional radiology. In: Proceedings of IRPA2010,Helsinki (2010).I. CLAIRAND ET AL.458

Active personal dosemeters in interventional radiology: tests in laboratory conditions and in hospitals

Hal-Diderot

https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_B5E5B1C5D709.P001/REF.pdf

Active personal dosemeters in interventional radiology: tests in laboratory conditions and in hospitals

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions