Design shielding assessment for a nuclear medicine service

Main Article Content

O Brígido Flores
J Hernández García
O Fabelo Bonet
A Montalván Estrada
Y Aparicio
R Mantecón

Abstract

It is recognized worldwide that the security of radioactive substances is very important and that the design of facilities where these sources are used and stored must cater for the implementation of good security measures, including the shielding of some treatment and diagnostic rooms. The radiation protection assessment of a nuclear medicine facility consists of the evaluation of the annual effective dose both to workers occupationally exposed and to members of the public. This assessment take into account the radionuclides involved, the facility features, the working procedures, the expected number of patients per year, the administered activity, the distribution of rooms, the thickness and physical materials of walls, floors and ceilings and so on. The assessment results were compared to the design requirements established by the Cuban regulatory body in order to determine whether or not, the nuclear medicine facility complies with those requirements, both for workers and for members of the public. The work presented is useful for facility designer that uses unsealed radionuclides and for the regulatory body.

Article Details

How to Cite
Brígido Flores, O., Hernández García, J., Fabelo Bonet, O., Montalván Estrada, A., Aparicio, Y., & Mantecón, R. (2019). Design shielding assessment for a nuclear medicine service. Nucleus, (65), 16-22. Retrieved from http://nucleus.cubaenergia.cu/index.php/nucleus/article/view/672
Section
Ciencias Nucleares

References

[1] International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection of the worker in medicine and dentistry. ICRP Publication No. 57. Annals of the ICRP 20 (3). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989.
[2] PADOVANI R. Shielding and facility design in nuclear medicine. In: Radiation protection in medical physics. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011.
[3] World Health Organization. Manual on radiation protection in hospitals and general practice, Volume 1: Basic Requirements and Volume 4: Nuclear Medicine (Manuscript 2000).
[4] International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear medicine resources manual. Vienna: IAEA, 2006.
[5] International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear medicine physics: a handbook for teachers and students. Vienna: IAEA , 2014.
[6] Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Design guide for nuclear substance laboratories and nuclear medicine rooms. Guidance Document GD-52. May 2010.
[7] Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. The design of diagnostic medical facilities where ionizing radiation is used. A code of practice. RPII 09/01. Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, June 2009.
[8] ESCALADA-PASTOR C, FERRER-GARCÍA N, MARTÍNEZ-GÓMEZ LC, FERNÁNDEZ-LETÓN P, et. al. Blindajes estructurales en instalaciones radiactivas médicas. In: Colección de Física Médica Vo.7: Protección Radiológica Hospitalaria. Sociedad Española de Física Médica, 2016.
[9] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Structural shielding design and evaluation for megavoltage X- and gamma-ray radiotherapy facilities. NCRP Report No. 151. 2005.
[10] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Management of radionuclide therapy patients. NCRP Report No. 155. 2006.
[11] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Sources and magnitude of occupational and public exposures from nuclear medicine procedures. NCRP Report No. 124. NCRP, 1996.
[12] International Commission on Radiological Protection. The handling, storage, use and disposal of unsealed radionuclides in hospitals and medical research establishments (ICRP Publication 25). Ann ICRP 1: No. 2, 1977.
[13] DELACROIX D, GUERRE JP, LEBLANC P, HICKMAN C. Radionuclide and Radiation Protection Data Handbook. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2002; 98(1): 1-315.
[14] SINGH-MANN K, KAUR B, SINGH-SIDHU D, KUMAR A. Investigations of some building materials for gamma-rays shielding effectiveness. Radiat. Phys. and Chem. 2013; 87: 16-25.