About: Electronic Personal Dosimeter is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 25 publications have been published within this topic receiving 115 citations.
TL;DR: Time‐integrated exposures showed that the type of outdoor field activities in the treeless expanse of the polar desert had little effect on the exposure received, although absolute exposure changed in accordance with the time of day, the exposure ratio did not vary much over the day.
Abstract: During July 2000 we used an electronic personal dosimeter (X-2000) and a biological dosimeter (Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft- und Raumfahrt: Biofilm) to characterize the UV radiation exposure of arctic field scientists involved in biological and geological fieldwork. These personnel were working at the Haughton impact structure on Devon Island (75°N) in the Canadian High Arctic under a 24 h photoperiod. During a typical day of field activities under a clear sky, the total daily erythemally weighted exposure, as measured by electronic dosimetry, was up to 5.8 standard erythemal dose (SED). Overcast skies (typically 7–8 okta of stratus) reduced exposures by a mean of 54%. We estimate that during a month of field activity in July a typical field scientist at this latitude could potentially receive ∼80 SED to the face. Because of body movements the upper body was exposed to a UV regimen that often changed on second-to-second timescales as assessed by electronic dosimetry. Over a typical 10 min period on vehicle traverse, we found that erythemal exposure could vary to up to 87% of the mean exposure. Time-integrated exposures showed that the type of outdoor field activities in the treeless expanse of the polar desert had little effect on the exposure received. Although absolute exposure changed in accordance with the time of day, the exposure ratio (dose received over horizontal dose) did not vary much over the day. Under clear skies the mean exposure ratio was 0.35 ± 0.12 for individual activities at different times of the day assessed using electronic dosimetry. Biological dosimetry showed that the occupation was important in determining daily exposures. In our study, scientists in the field received an approximately two-fold higher dose than individuals, such as medics and computer scientists, who spent the majority of their time in tents.
TL;DR: This study confirmed that low levels of radiation dose were received by all radiation staff duringPET/CT procedure using 18F-FDG due to efficient shielding and using trained radiation staff in PET/CT and cyclotron center of Masih Daneshvari hospital.
Abstract: Background: PET/CT imaging using [18F]-FDG is utilized in clinical oncology for tumor detecting, staging and responding to therapy procedures. Essential consideration must be taken for radiation staff due to high gamma radiation in PET/CT and cyclotron center. The aim of this study was to assess the staff exposure regarding whole body and organ dose and to evaluate environment dose in PET/CT and cyclotron center. Materials and Methods: 80 patients participated in this study. Thermoluminescence, electronic personal dosimeter and Geiger–Muller dosimeter were also utilized for measurement purpose. Results: The mean annual equivalent organ dose for scanning operator with regard to lens of eyes, thyroid, breast and finger according to mean±SD value, were 0.262±0.044, 0.256±0.046, 0.257±0.040 and 0.316±0.118, respectively. The maximum and minimum estimated annual whole body doses were observed for injector and the chemist group with values of (3.98±0.021) mSv/yr and (1.64±0.014) mSv/yr, respectively. The observed dose rates were 5.67 µSv/h in uptake room at the distance of 0.5 meter from the patient whereas the value 4.94 and 3.08 µSv/h were recorded close to patient’s head in PET/CT room and 3.5 meter from the reception desk. Conclusion: In this study, the injector staff and scanning operator received the first high level and second high level of radiation. This study confirmed that low levels of radiation dose were received by all radiation staff during PET/CT procedure using 18F-FDG due to efficient shielding and using trained radiation staff in PET/CT and cyclotron center of Masih Daneshvari hospital.
TL;DR: In this article, an application of a recently developed electronic personal dosimeter (D-shuttle) for aviation dosimetry was investigated, and it was confirmed that the D-Shuttle values were in the range of 25% to 30% of the total H*(10) estimated by a route-dose calculation program JISCARD EX.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the level of radiation exposure of the spine surgeon and the patient during percutaneous procedures and found that the exposure dose to the eye exceeds the annual limit after 3500 procedures.
TL;DR: The performance of the Electronic Personal Dosemeter was found to be quite acceptable: it met most of the relevant requirements of the three standards, but the following deficiencies were found: slow response time; sensitivity to high-frequency electromagnetic fields; poor resistance to dropping; and an alarm that was not loud enough.
Abstract: This paper presents the results of a laboratory assessment of the performance of a new type of personal dosimeter, the Electronic Personal Dosemeter made by Siemens Plessey Controls Limited. Twenty pre-production dosimeters and a reader were purchased by Ontario Hydro for the assessment. Tests were performed on radiological performance, including reproducibility, accuracy, linearity, detection threshold, energy response, angular response, neutron response, and response time. There were also tests on the effects of a variety of environmental factors, such as temperature, humidity, pulsed magnetic and electric fields, low- and high-frequency electromagnetic fields, light exposure, drop impact, vibration, and splashing. Other characteristics that were tested were alarm volume, clip force, and battery life. The test results were compared with the relevant requirements of three standards: an Ontario Hydro standard for personal alarming dosimeters, an International Electrotechnical Commission draft standard for direct reading personal dose monitors, and an International Electrotechnical Commission standard for thermoluminescence dosimetry systems for personal monitoring. In general, the performance of the Electronic Personal Dosemeter was found to be quite acceptable: it met most of the relevant requirements of the three standards. However, the following deficiencies were found: slow response time; sensitivity to high-frequency electromagnetic fields; poor resistance to dropping; and an alarm that was not loud enough. In addition, the response of the electronic personal dosimeter to low-energy beta rays may be too low for some applications. Problems were experienced with the reliability of operation of the pre-production dosimeters used in these tests.