SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     




J Nucl Med. 2011; 52 (Supplement 1):2424
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patel, C.
Right arrow Articles by Zuckier, L.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Patel, C.
Right arrow Articles by Zuckier, L.

Technologist Student Abstracts

Technologist Student Scientific Papers II

Minute-to-minute analysis of technologist exposure in an FDG-PET facility

Chintan Patel1, Ronak Shah1 and Lionel Zuckier1

1 Radiology, New Jersey Medical School - UMDNJ, Teaneck, NJ

Abstract No. 2424

Objectives: To capture and analyze technologist exposure in the course of typical occupational activities of an FDG-PET facility.

Methods: Readings from a portable personal geiger counter (Aware Electronics, Wilmington DE) were correlated with activities of 2 experienced technologists performing F-18 FDG-PET over the course of multiple days. Dose rate/mCi and total dose/mCi were correlated with particular occupational activities. Based on the median exposure for each activity an average exposure of technologist per patient was calculated.

Results: Total exposure from an "average" patient injected with 555 MBq was calculated as 10.2 or 11.9 µSv for each technologist. Approximately half of the exposure was associated with injection of FDG (56% and 45% total) with the remainder from disposal (12% and 21%), positioning/repositioning of the patient on the gantry (22% and 27%) and removal of the patient from the camera (7% and 6%). Unpacking and measurement of unit doses in the hot-lab added only a minor contribution (3% and 2%). In occasional patients, multiple (re)positionings slightly increased technologist exposure.

Conclusions: Approximately two-thirds of technologist exposure in an FDG-PET facility is associated with activities related to FDG injection and subsequent disposal. Efforts to mitigate exposure would most productively be associated with these occupational tasks. Exposure from positioning of the patient contributed approximately 1/4 of the total however had potential to increase if multiple repositionings were required. Surprisingly, initial exposure in the hot-lab was minimal likely due to effective shielding and radiation safety procedures


Figure 01
View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Typical Exposure During Occupational Tasks

 




This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patel, C.
Right arrow Articles by Zuckier, L.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Patel, C.
Right arrow Articles by Zuckier, L.