Occupational Dose in Nuclear Medicine Department; Hospital Kuala Lumpur Experience

  • F. R. Kufian
  • M. K. A. Karim
  • N. N. Rapie
  • W. N. S. W. Aziz
  • S. Radziah
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Bioengineering book series (LNBE)

Abstract

Personnel dose monitoring among nuclear medicine worker is the most vital component in the occupational safety. Generally, most of these workers are monitored by using variable type of personnel dosimeter such as optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), radio-photoluminescence (RPL), thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLD) and film badge. Therefore, we aimed to estimate whole body exposure of workers using OSL and RPL and evaluate the performance of both dosimeters in occupational dosimetry. 22 subjects (5 physicists, 6 pharmacists and 11 technologists) were participated in this study where both dosimeter was placed on mid-chest area for a period of 3 month. For analysis purpose, the RPL was sent to APM Nuclear Technology while OSL was analyzed by in house physicist using OSL reader (Microstar, Japan). Mean dose value Hp(10) of the nuclear medicine worker using OSL and RPL result obtained were 0.23 ± 0.11 mSv and 0.19 ± 0.07 mSv, respectively. As indicate from the result, there was a significant difference of dose between OSL and RPL. The range of dose value recorded for OSL and RPL measurement was 0.20 mSv to 0.26 mSv and 0.17 mSv to 0.21 mSv, respectively. The finding of this study shows that OSL was much more sensitive than RPL by a factor of 1.2. Therefore, OSL will enhance occupational safety program by minimizing radiation risk among radiation worker.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to our beloved Head of Department, Dr. Siti Zarina binti Amir Hassan for the encouragement to conduct this study. We also would like to thanks Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Kuala Lumpur for staffs cooperation and facilities support.

References

  1. 1.
    Law of Malaysia, Act 304: Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Protection R (1991) ICRP publication 60. Ann ICRP, 21(1.3)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garcier Y, Cordier G, Pauron C, Fazileabasse J (2006) Intercomparison of passive dosimetry technology at EDF facilities in France. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 124(2):107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perks CA, Yahnke C, Million M (2008) Medical dosimetry using optically stimulated luminescence dots and microStar readers. In: 12th international congress of the international radiation protection associationGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhatt BC (2011) Thermoluminescence, optically stimulated luminescence and radiophotoluminescence dosimetry: an overall perspective. Radiat Prot Environ 34(1):6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bøtter-Jensen L, McKeever SW, Wintle AG (2003) Optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Abdulsalam A, Brindhaban A (2014) Occupational radiation exposure among the staff of departments of nuclear medicine and diagnostic radiology in Kuwait. Med Princ Pract 23(2):129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. R. Kufian
    • 1
  • M. K. A. Karim
    • 2
  • N. N. Rapie
    • 1
  • W. N. S. W. Aziz
    • 1
  • S. Radziah
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineHospital Kuala LumpurKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyNational Cancer InstitutePutrajayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations