Abstract
Staff working with PET radiopharmaceuticals wear active personal dosimeters and a passive dosimeter which provides the legal dose record for regulatory purposes. Given the capabilities of current active dosimeters with a dose logging capability it may be asked whether the active dosimeters could be used as the legal dosimeter, removing the need for a passive dosimeter.
A series of controlled experiments were performed exposing active dosimeters and two types of approved passive dosimeters to a range of doses from vials containing 18FDG. Reported doses from passive and active monitoring of staff were compared over 24 months. A questionnaire was used to gauge worker preferences and acceptance of different personal dosimeters.
It was found that the active dosimeters agree well with the TLD results over the range of doses tested in the controlled experiments. Agreement with the OSL dosimeters was not as good. Active dosimeters gave more repeatable results than either of the passive dosimeters.
There was poor agreement between the passive and active dosimeters in the worker results for both radiopharmaceutical production workers and nurses and technologists working with PET patients. Large numbers of the passive dosimeters reported “below the detection limit” when the active dosimeters reported doses above the supplier stated detection limits.
Workers were positive in their response to using active dosimeters, and felt that they were useful in aiding their radiation protection.
Controlled experiments have demonstrated that active dosimeters are capable of accurately and reliably reporting doses from 18FDG. Comparisons of worker doses were far less conclusive and demonstrated the difficulty of obtaining accurate dose data from personal dosimeters of any kind. The main hurdle to the use of active dosimeters to provide the legal record of worker exposure seems to be regulatory rather than technical.
A series of controlled experiments were performed exposing active dosimeters and two types of approved passive dosimeters to a range of doses from vials containing 18FDG. Reported doses from passive and active monitoring of staff were compared over 24 months. A questionnaire was used to gauge worker preferences and acceptance of different personal dosimeters.
It was found that the active dosimeters agree well with the TLD results over the range of doses tested in the controlled experiments. Agreement with the OSL dosimeters was not as good. Active dosimeters gave more repeatable results than either of the passive dosimeters.
There was poor agreement between the passive and active dosimeters in the worker results for both radiopharmaceutical production workers and nurses and technologists working with PET patients. Large numbers of the passive dosimeters reported “below the detection limit” when the active dosimeters reported doses above the supplier stated detection limits.
Workers were positive in their response to using active dosimeters, and felt that they were useful in aiding their radiation protection.
Controlled experiments have demonstrated that active dosimeters are capable of accurately and reliably reporting doses from 18FDG. Comparisons of worker doses were far less conclusive and demonstrated the difficulty of obtaining accurate dose data from personal dosimeters of any kind. The main hurdle to the use of active dosimeters to provide the legal record of worker exposure seems to be regulatory rather than technical.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Qualification | Masters |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisors/Advisors |
|
| Award date | 20 Oct 2016 |
| Publication status | Unpublished - 2016 |