Comparison of the protection performance in a composite shield and a lead standard shield in terms of biological effects in nuclear medicine

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Radiology Technology, Faculty of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Hematology and Blood Banking, Faculty of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Resin and Additives, Institute for Color Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Introduction:In the nuclear medicine departments, staff exposure to radiation is inevitable during patient positioning and radiopharmaceutical preparation. There is controversy regarding the use of usual lead aprons with respect to penetrating gamma rays used in nuclear medicine departments as well as production of characteristic lead x-ray from aprons.
Methods: This research compares the shielding properties of poly vinyl alcohol reinforced by lead acetate, with lead shield based on biological damage to blood cells from the Technetium-99m source. All computations have been carried out by using the WinXcom program. In addition, the alkaline comet assay has been used to estimate DNA damage at the single cell level. Statistical comparisons were analyzed by using the T-test.
Results: Calculated value of μm is 0.7616 (cm2/ g), HVL is 7.4 mm and density is 1.224 g/cm3. A significant difference in reducing the amount of DNA damage by 0.5mm sheet of lead was not found.

Conclusion: Considering the effects of distance and time on lead acetate composite, results showed that increasing the distance has a significant impact on harm reduction. Even at a distance of 100 cm from the source at all exposure times, the damage is much reduced, compared to the groups with and without a lead shield.


Main Subjects

  1. Mountford PJ. Risk assessment of the nuclear medicine patient. Br J Radiol. 1997 Jul;70(835):671-84.
  2. Bashore T. Fundamentals of X-ray imaging and radiation safety. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001 Sep;54(1):126-35.
  3. ICRP Publication 60: 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Quantities used in radiological protection. Ann ICRP 1991;21(1-3):4-11.
  4. Puthran SS, Sudha K, Rao GM, Shetty BV. Oxidative stress and low dose ionizing radiation. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009 Apr-Jun;53(2):181-4.
  5. Evans HJ, Buckton KE, Hamilton GE, Carothers A. Radiation-induced chromosome aberrations in nuclear-dockyard workers. Nature. 1979 Feb 15;277(5697):531-4.
  6. Olive PL, Banáth JP, Durand RE. Heterogeneity in radiation-induced DNA damage and repair in tumor and normal cells measured using the "comet" assay. Radiat Res. 1990 Apr;122(1):86-94.
  7. Bushberg JT. The Essential physics of Medical imaging.  2nd ed.  Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams; 2002. p. 814- 820.
  8. Hall EJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. 5th ed. USA: Lippincott Williams & wilkin; 2000. p. 22-29.
  9. Bayram T, Yilmaz AH, Demir M, Sonmez B. Radiation dose to technologists per nuclear medicine examination and estimation of annual dose. J Nucl Med Technol. 2011 Mar;39(1):55-9. 
  10. Young AM. Dose rates in nuclear medicine and the effectiveness of lead aprons: updating the department's knowledge on old and new procedures. Nucl Med Commun. 2013 Mar;34(3):254-64.
  11. Steyn PF, Uhrig J. The role of protective lead clothing in reducing radiation exposure rates to personnel during equine bone scintigraphy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2005 Nov-Dec;46(6):529-32.
  12. Cember H. Introduction to health physics, 2nd ed. New York: Pergamon Press Oxford; 1983.
  13. Harish V, Nagaiah N, Harish Kumar HG. Lead oxides filled isophthalic resin polymer composites for gamma radiation shielding applications. Indian J Pure Appl Phys. 2012;50(11):847-850.
  14. Gwaily SE, Madani M, Hassan HH. Lead-natural rubber composites as gamma radiation shields. II: High concentration. Polym Composites. 2002;23(4):495-499.
  15. Saloman EB, Hubbell JH. X-ray attenuation coefficients (total cross sections): comparison of the experimental data base with the recommended valued of Henke and the theoretical values of Scofield for energies between 0.1-100 keV. Gaithersburg: National Bureau of Standards; 1986:NBSIR 86-3431.         
  16. Warren-Forward H, Cardew P, Smith B, Clack L, McWhirter K, Johnson S, Wessel K. A comparison of dose savings of lead and lightweight aprons for shielding of 99m-Technetium radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2007;124(2):89-96.
  17. Culver CM, Dworkin HJ. Comparison of personnel radiation dosimetry from myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: technetium-99m-sestamibi versus thallium-201. J Nucl Med. 1993 Jul;34(7):1210-3.
  18. Murphy PH, Wu Y, Glaze SA. Attenuation properties of lead composite aprons. Radiology. 1993 Jan;186(1):269-72.
  19. Gomez-Palacios M, Terrón JA, Domínguez P, Vera DR, Osuna RF. Radiation doses in the surroundings of patients undergoing nuclear medicine diagnostic studies. Health Phys. 2005 Aug;89(2 Suppl):S27-34.
  20. Al-Saadi AJ. Variation of gamma ray attenuation parameters for poly vinyl alcohol reinforced by lead acetate. J Kerbala Univ. 2014;12(3):35-43.
  21. Hejazi.P, Sohrabi M. Staff radiation doses associated with nuclear procedures and efficacy of syringe shield for reduction dose. J Semnan Univ Med Sci. 2001;2(2):117-122.
  22. Gwaily SE. Galena/(NR+SBR) rubber composites as gamma radiation shields. Polym Test. 2002;21(8):883–887.
  23. Eid Gh, Kany A, El-Toony M, Bashter I, Gaber F. Application of epoxy/ Pb3O4 composite for gamma ray shielding. Arab J Nucl Sci Appl. 2013;46(2):226-233.
  24. Ghazi Khanlou Sani K, Momennezhad M,Zakavi SR, SabzevariS.Effect of lead aprons on decreasing the dose received by personnel in nuclear medicine departments. J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2009;10(5):30-34.