Evaluations for determination of optimum shields in nuclear medicine

6Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background:131I source is widely used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancers.131I emits both beta and gamma-rays. Radiation protection is considered for gamma rays emitted by131I. It seems no special shield against131I source to be designed. Objective: This research aims to evaluate determination of optimum shields in nuclear medicine against99Tcm and131I sources by dosimetric method. Additionally, Monte Carlo simulation was used to find the optimum thickness of lead for protection against131I source. Material and Methods: This is an experimental research in the field of radiation protection. A calibrated model of GraetzX5C Plus dosimeter was used to measure exposure rates passing through the shields. The efficiency of the shields was evaluated against99Tcm and131I. Furthermore, Monte Carlo simulation was used to find the optimum thickness of lead for protection against131I source. Results: The findings of the dosimetric method show that the minimum and maximum efficiencies obtained by the lead apron with lead equivalent thickness of 0.25 mm and the syringe holder shields with thickness of 0.5 mm lead were 50.86% and 99.50%, respectively. The results of the simulations show that the minimum and maximum efficiencies obtained by lead thicknesses of 1 mm and 43 mm were 19.36% and 99.79%, respectively. Conclusion: The optimum shields against99Tcm are the syringe holder shield, the tungsten syringe shield, and the lead partition, respectively. Furthermore, based on simulations, the thicknesses of 11-28 mm of lead with efficiencies between 90.6% to 99% are suggested as the optimum thicknesses to protect against131I source.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Parvaresh, R., Jalili, M., Haghparast, A., Khoshgard, K., Eivazi, M. T., & Ghorbani, M. (2020). Evaluations for determination of optimum shields in nuclear medicine. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering, 10(5), 651–658. https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1118

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free