Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 274–283 | Cite as

Qualitative study of mechanical parameters of conventional diagnostic X-ray machines in Mizoram

  • Jonathan Lalrinmawia
  • Kham Suan Pau
  • Ramesh Chandra Tiwari


The present study examined the mechanical attributes of 135 conventional diagnostic X-ray machines in Mizoram, India. The purpose of studying the X-ray mechanical parameters, such as congruency, perpendicularity of the central beam, and half-value layer, was to improve the quality of the diagnostic image and reduce the patient dose. A battery-operated portable dosimeter was used to measure output radiation of the X-ray machine. The half-value layer was measured at a constant accelerating potential of 70 kVp and tube load. To measure the congruency and beam alignment perpendicularity, a congruence and alignment tool was used. The survey data were collected between June 2015 and June 2016. The authors followed international standard test procedures, and the results were compared to national and international standards. SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 17 was used to calculate the mean, range, and standard deviation. The half-value layer ranged from 0.45 to 3.00 mm; the mean half-value layer was 1.60 ± 0.51 SD mm. In comparison with national and international standards, only 27.83% (national) and 15.64% (international) of the machines’ filtration were found to be within acceptable limits. The congruence misalignment of the x-axis varied between 0.50% and 15.30% of the source-to-image distance; for the y-axis, it ranged from 0.50 to 10.90%. When the congruence between the radiation beam and optical field was tested, 80.85% of diagnostic X-ray machines did not meet the prescribed acceptance parameters. When the perpendicularity between the central beam and the image receptor was tested, 69.81% did not meet safety standards.


Central beam perpendicularity Congruence between radiation and optical field Half-value layer Conventional diagnostic X-ray Radiation safety 



The authors express their sincere thanks to the Committee for Safety Research Programme (CSRP), the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB, Mumbai), Government of India, for financial assistance through Major Research Project No.AERB/CSRP/58/02/2014 awarded in September 30, 2014.


This study was funded by the Committee for Safety Research Programme (CSRP) and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), project number AERB/CSRP/58/02/2014; September 30, 2014.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any human and animal studies.


  1. 1.
    Bennett BG. Exposures from medical radiation world-wide. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 1991;36:237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bushong SC. Radiologic science for technologists: physics, biology, and protection, tenth edition, 3251 Riverport Lane, St. Louis, Missouri 63043. Amsterdam: Elsevier Mosby; 2013. pp. 578–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann of the ICRP 21 Oxford: Pergamon; 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Notification No. 30.1.2002-ER, Appointment of Chairman, AERB as the ‘Competent Authority’ of radiation protection in India, The Gazette of India, Part-II, Sect. 3(ii), 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Notification No. 25/2/83-ER, Constitution of AERB, The Gazette of India, Part-II, Sect. 3(ii); 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Supe SJ, Iyer PS, Sasane JB, Sawant SG, Shirva VK. Estimation and significance of patient dose from diagnostic X-ray practices in India. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 1992;43(1/4):209–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lalrinmawia J, Pau KS, Tiwari RC. Quality assurance assessment of conventional diagnostic X-ray installations in Mizoram. J Med Phys. 2017;42 Suppl S1:208–9. (ISSN: 0971–6203).
  8. 8.
    Gray JE, Winkler NT, Stears J, Frank ED. Quality control in diagnostic imaging. Maryland USA. Germantown: An Aspen Publication; 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papp J. Quality management in the imaging sciences 5th ed. 3251 Riverport Lane. Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johns HE, Cunningham JR. The physics of radiology, 4th ed. Springfield, Illinois 62717, USA: Thomas CC; 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asadinezhad M, Toosi MTB, Ebrahiminia A, Giahi M. Quality control assessment of conventional radiology devices in Iran. Iran J Med Phys. 2017;14(1):1–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meredith WJ, Massey JB. Fundamental Physics of Radiology, 3rd ed. Bombay: Varghese Publishing House; 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahmad MA. Safety of analytical X-ray appliances, Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki, Finland, 2015.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IAEA. Diagnostic radiology physics; A handbook for teachers and students. 1400 Vienna, Austria, 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Publication Committee, Basic in Diagnostic Radiology, AAPM Report No 4; American Institute of Physics, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lalrinmawia J, Pau KS, Tiwari RC. Investigations of workers dose due to stray radiation in X-ray installations in Mizoram. Recent advances in physics research and its relevance. New Delhi: Excel India publishers; 2017. pp. 258–63. (ISBN: ISBN: 978-93-86256-85-0$4).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lalrinmawia J, Pau KS, Tiwari RC. Investigations of public dose due to stray radiation in X-ray installations in Mizoram. Science and technology for shaping the future of Mizoram. New Delhi: Allied publishers Pvt. Ltd.; 2017, pp. 305–9. (ISBN: 978-93-85926-49-5).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Structural shielding design for medical X-rays imaging facilities. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; NCRP Report; 2004. p. 147.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ebisawa MLNI., Magon MFA, Mascarenhas YM. Evolution of X-ray machine quality control acceptance indices. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10(4):252–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Operator Manual 06-526 RAD-CHECK™ PLUS. P/N 136201, Rev. 6, Fluke Corporation, USA, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rasuli B, Pashazadeh AM, Ghorbani M, Juybari RT, Naserpour M. Patient dose measurement in common medical X-ray examinations in Iran. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(1):374–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Safety Code No. AERB/SC/MED-2 (Rev. 1), ‘Safety Code for Medical Diagnostic X-ray equipment and Installations’ AERB, Mumbai, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Health Canada. Safety code 35: Safety procedures for the installation, use and control of X-ray equipment in large medical radiological facilities. Retrieved January 22 2017 from (2008).
  24. 24.
    Radiation Protection No 91. Criteria for acceptability of radiological and nuclear medicine installations. Euratom Treaty and the Council Directives; European commission., p. 6.
  25. 25.
    Operator Manual. 07-661-7662 Collimator/Beam Alignment Test Tool. Fluke Corporation, USA; 2005.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sungita YY, Mdoe SLC. Msaki Peter. Diagnostic X-ray facilities as per quality control performances in Tanzania. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2006;7 (4):66–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turner JE. Interaction of Ionizing Radiation with Matter. Health Phys. 2005;88(6):;520 – 544.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Medical X-ray, Electron beam and Gamma-ray Protection for energies up to 50 MeV (Equipment Design, Performance and use). Bethesda: NCRP; NCRP Report, 102; 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vlachos I, Tsantilas X, Kalyvas N, Delis H, Kandaraskis I, Panayiotakis G. Measuring scatter radiation in diagnostic X-rays for radiation protection purposes. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015;165(1–4):382–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    American Association of Physics in Medicine. Publication Committee ‘Protocols for the Radiation Safety Surveys of Diagnostic Radiological Equipment’ AAPM Report No 25 American Institute of Physics, New York; 1988.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paolicchi F, Miniati F, Bastiani L, Faggioni L, Ciaramella A, Creonti I, et al. Assessment of radiation protection awareness and knowledge about radiological examination doses among Italian radiographers. Insight Imaging. 2016;7(2):233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sonawane AU, Meghraj S, Sunil KJVK, Kulkarni ASVK Pradhan AS. Radiological safety status and quality assurance audit of medical X-ray diagnostic installations in India. J Med Phys. 2010;35:229–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hude W. Radiation risks: what is to be done? American Roentgen Ray Society. 2015;204:124–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Lalrinmawia
    • 1
  • Kham Suan Pau
    • 2
  • Ramesh Chandra Tiwari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsMizoram UniversityAizawlIndia
  2. 2.Mizoram State Cancer InstituteAizawlIndia

Personalised recommendations