radhydРадиационная гигиенаRadiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene1998-426X2409-9082NIIRG10.21514/1998-426X-2023-16-3-13-21radhyd-971Research ArticleСанитарно-эпидемиологический надзорSanitary and epidemiologic supervisionКритический анализ существующего подхода к расчету стационарной защиты в рентгеновских кабинетахCritical analysis of the existing approach to the calculation of radiation shielding in X-ray roomsГоликовВ. Ю.GolikovV. Yu.

Senior Researcher of the Medical Protection Laboratory; Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being

Mira Str., 8, Saint-Petersburg, 197101

Санкт-Петербургский научно-исследовательский институт радиационной гигиены имени профессора П.В. Рамзаева, Федеральная служба по надзору в сфере защиты прав потребителей и благополучия человекаРоссияSaint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-BeingRussian Federation2023011020231631321Copyright © Голиков В.Ю., 20232023Голиков В.Ю.Golikov V.Y.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.radhyg.ru/jour/article/view/971

В статье продемонстрированы недостатки существующей методологии расчета стационарной защиты рентгеновских кабинетов, изложенной в СанПиН 2.6.1.1192-03. Показано, что алгоритм расчета коэффициента ослабления барьером не учитывает особенности ослабления разных компонентов рентгеновского излучения: прямого, рассеянного и излучения утечки, которые отличаются областью возникновения, интенсивностью, энергетическим спектром и другими параметрами. Вместо этого используется единая формула для всех компонентов, а отличия в их ослаблении учитываются параметром, значения которого для разных компонентов излучения никак не обоснованы и вызывают сомнение. В расчете также не учитывается распределение рабочей нагрузки рентгеновских аппаратов по напряжению на трубке и существенное ослабление прямого рентгеновского излучения дополнительными конструкциями, необходимыми для получения изображения. Рекомендуемые для проектирования защиты в СанПиН 2.6.1.1192-03 значения радиационного выхода рентгеновских аппаратов в 2–3 раза завышены по отношению к измеряемым на практике значениям. Все это приводит, как правило, к необоснованному завышению расчетной толщины стационарной защиты в рентгеновских кабинетах и, соответственно, к неоптимальному расходованию средств на здравоохранение. Необходима подготовка нового документа в части, касающейся методологии расчета стационарной защиты взамен методологии, представленной в СанПиН 2.6.1.1192-03.

The paper demonstrates the limitations of the existing methodology for calculating the radiation shielding of X-ray rooms presented in SanPin 2.6.1.1192-03. It is shown that the algorithm for calculating the attenuation coefficient by the barrier does not take into account the features of the attenuation of different components of X-ray radiation: direct, scattered, and leakage radiation, which differ in the region of occurrence, intensity, energy spectrum, and other parameters. Instead, a single formula is used for all components, and the differences in their attenuation are taken into account by a parameter the values of which for different radiation components are in no way justified and are questionable. The calculation also does not take into account the distribution of the workload of X-ray machines by the tube voltage, the significant attenuation of direct X-ray radiation by additional structures necessary for image acquisition. The values of the radiation output of X-ray machines recommended for shielding design in SanPiN 2.6.1.1192-03 are 2–3 times overestimated in relation to the measured values. This leads to an unreasonable overestimation of the requirements for the thickness of radiation shielding in X-ray rooms and accordingly to suboptimal spending on healthcare. It is necessary to develop a new document to replace SanPiN 2.6.1.1192-03.

рентгеновский кабинетстационарная защита от излучениякоэффициент ослабленияпрямое излучениерассеянное излучениемедицинские исследованияradiation shielding barrierX-ray roomattenuation coefficientdirect radiationscatter radiationmedical investigationsReferencesNCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). Structural shielding design for medical X-ray imaging facilities. NCRP Report No. 147. NCRP, 2004.NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). Structural shielding design for medical X-ray imaging facilities. NCRP Report No. 147. NCRP, 2004.National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation for Medical Use of X Rays and Gamma Rays of Energies up to 10 MeV, Bethesda, MD: NCRP: NCRP Report No. 49; 1976.National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation for Medical Use of X Rays and Gamma Rays of Energies up to 10 MeV, Bethesda, MD: NCRP: NCRP Report No. 49; 1976.Kelley J.P., Trout E.D. Broad Beam Attenuation in lead for X-rays from 50 to 300 kVp // Radiology. 1972. Vol. 104 P. 171-175.Kelley JP, Trout ED. Broad Beam Attenuation in lead for X-rays from 50 to 300 kVp. Radiology. 1972;104:171-175.Braestrup C.B., Wyckoff H.O. Shielding Design Levels for Radiology Departments // Radiology. 1973. Vol. 107. P. 445-448.Braestrup CB, Wyckoff HO. Shielding Design Levels for Radiology Departments. Radiology. 1973;107: 445-448.Trout E.D., Kelley J.P., Herbert G.L. X-Ray Attenuation in Steel from 50 to 300 kVp // Health Physics. 1975. Vol. 29. P. 163-169.Trout ED, Kelley JP, Herbert GL. X-Ray Attenuation in Steel from 50 to 300 kVp. Health Physics. 1975;29: 163-169.Trout E.D., Kelley J.P. Scattered Radiation from a Tissue equivalent phantom for X-rays from 50 to 300 kVp // Radiology. 1972. Vol. 104. P. 161-169.Trout ED, Kelley JP. Scattered Radiation from a Tissue equivalent phantom for X-rays from 50 to 300 kVp. Radiology. 1972;104: 161-169.Simpkin D.J. Evaluation of NCRP Report 49 Assumptions on Workloads and Use Factors in Diagnostic Radiology Facilities // Medical Physics. 1996. Vol. 23. P. 577-584.Simpkin DJ. Evaluation of NCRP Report 49 Assumptions on Workloads and Use Factors in Diagnostic Radiology Facilities. Medical Physics. 1996;23: 577-584.Archer B.R., Fewell T.R., Conway B.J., Quinn P.W. Attenuation Properties of Diagnostic X-Ray Shielding Materials // Medical Physics. 1994. Vol. 21, No 9. P. 1499-1507.Archer BR, Fewell TR, Conway BJ, Quinn PW. Attenuation Properties of Diagnostic X-Ray Shielding Materials. Medical Physics. 1994;21(9): 1499-1507.Archer B.R., Thornby J.I., Bushong S.C. Diagnostic X-Ray Shielding Design Based on an Empirical Model of Photon Attenuation // Health Physics. 1983. Vol. 44. P. 507-517.Archer BR, Thornby JI, Bushong SC. Diagnostic X-Ray Shielding Design Based on an Empirical Model of Photon Attenuation. Health Physics. 1983;44: 507-517.Simpkin D.J. Transmission data for shielding diagnostic X-ray facilities // Health Physics. 1995. Vol. 68. P. 704-709.Simpkin D.J. Transmission data for shielding diagnostic X-ray facilities. Health Physics. 1995;68: 704-709.Simpkin D.J., Dixon R.L. Secondary Shielding Barriers for Diagnostic X-ray Facilities: Scatter and Leakage Revisited // Health Physics. 1998. Vol. 74. P. 350-365.Simpkin DJ, Dixon RL. Secondary Shielding Barriers for Diagnostic X-ray Facilities: Scatter and Leakage Revisited. Health Physics. 1998;74: 350-365.Martin C.J. Radiation shielding for diagnostic radiology // Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2015. Vol. 165, No 1–4. P. 376–381. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncv040.Martin CJ. Radiation shielding for diagnostic radiology. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2015;165(1–4): 376–381. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncv040.Голиков В.Ю., Водоватов А.В. Критический анализ и предложения по совершенствованию существующей системы радиационного контроля в рентгеновских кабинетах. // Радиационная гигиена. 2021. Т.14, № 2. С. 39–47. doi: 10.21514/1998-426X-2021-14-2-39-47.Golikov VYu, Vodovatov AV. Critical analysis and suggestions to improve the existing system of radiation control in X-ray rooms. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2021;14(2): 39-47. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2021-14-2-39-47.Radiation Shielding for Diagnostic Radiology, Second Edition. Editors: Sutton D.G., Martin C.J., Williams J.R. and Peet D.J. British Institute of Radiology, London, UK, 2012. 148 p.Radiation Shielding for Diagnostic Radiology, Second Edition. Editors: Sutton DG, Martin CJ, Williams JR, Peet DJ. British Institute of Radiology, London, UK; 2012. 148 p.Rossi R.P., Ritenour R., Christodoulou E. Broad beam transmission properties of some common shielding materials for use in diagnostic radiology // Health Physics. 1991. Vol. 61. P. 601-608.Rossi RP, Ritenour R, Christodoulou E. Broad beam transmission properties of some common shielding materials for use in diagnostic radiology. Health Physics. 1991;61: 601-608.Chritensen Rc., Sayeg J.A. Attenuation characteristics of gypsum wallboard // Health Physics. 1979. Vol. 36. P. 595-600.Chritensen Rc, Sayeg JA. Attenuation characteristics of gypsum wallboard. Health Physics. 1979;36: 595-600.Simpkin D.J. Shielding requirements for mammography // Health Physics. 1987. Vol. 53. P. 267-279.Simpkin DJ. Shielding requirements for mammography. Health Physics. 1987;53: 267-279.DIN 6812:2021-06: Medical x-ray equipment up to 300 kv – Rules of construction for structural radiation protection. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin (Germany); DINNormenausschuss Radiologie (NAR), Pforzheim (Germany), 2021.DIN 6812:2021-06: Medical x-ray equipment up to 300 kv Rules of construction for structural radiation protection. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin (Germany); DINNormenausschuss Radiologie (NAR), Pforzheim (Germany); 2021.Голиков В.Ю., Водоватов А.В. Оценка значений рабочей нагрузки рентгеновских аппаратов при проведении рентгенологических процедур общего назначения // Радиационная гигиена. 2015. Т. 8, № 2. С. 6-10.Golikov VYu. Estimation of an X-ray machine’s workload during routine radiological examinations. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2015;8(2): 6-10. (In Russian).Dixon R.L. On the primary barrier in diagnostic x-ray shielding // Medical Physics. 1994. Vol. 21. P. 1785-1794.Dixon RL. On the primary barrier in diagnostic x-ray shielding. Medical Physics. 1994;21: 1785-1794.Dixon R.L., Simpkin D.J. Primary Shielding Barriers for Diagnostic X-ray Facilities: A New Model // Health Physics. 1998. Vol. 74. P. 181-189.Dixon RL, Simpkin DJ. Primary Shielding Barriers for Diagnostic X-ray Facilities: A New Model. Health Physics. 1998;74: 181-189.Балонов М.И., Голиков В.Ю., Кальницкий С.А., Братилова А.А. Риск стохастических эффектов облучения вследствие рентгенографических исследований: зависимость от пола и возраста пациента // Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2011. Том 56, № 4. C. 71-79.Balonov MI, Golikov VYu, Kalnitsky SA, Bratilova AA. Risk of stochastic effects of exposure due to radiographic investigations: dependence on the sex and age of the patient. Meditsinskaya radiologiya i radiatsionnaya bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2011;56(4): 71-79. (In Russian).Wallace H., Martin C J., Sutton D.G. et al. Establishment of scatter factors for use in shielding calculations and risk assessment for computed tomography facilities // Journal of Radiological Protection. 2012. Vol. 32. P. 39–50.Wallace H, Martin C J, Sutton DG, et al. Establishment of scatter factors for use in shielding calculations and risk assessment for computed tomography facilities. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2012;32: 39

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.