Review and performance comparison of lead-free shields and lead shields, in terms of biological effects in nuclear medicine by the comet method

authors:

avatar Mohsen Bakhshande ORCID , * , avatar Mohsen Bakhshandeh , avatar Mehdiollah bakhshian-Farsani , avatar Ehsan Bakhshandeh , avatar Nozhat Shakeri

Koomesh: Vol.20, issue 4; 792-799
published online: April 01, 2018
article type: issue_documents_importer
received: June 01, 2017
accepted: February 01, 2018

how to cite: Bakhshande M, Bakhshandeh M, bakhshian-Farsani M, Bakhshandeh E, Shakeri N. Review and performance comparison of lead-free shields and lead shields, in terms of biological effects in nuclear medicine by the comet method. koomesh. 2018;20(4):e153028. 

Abstract

Introduction: Ionizing radiation can cause DNA damage that is very important biological molecule. Using of lead aprons by nuclear medicine stuff to decrease the harmful effect of the creation of special lead X-rays derived from high-energy gamma ray collisions and the high absorption coefficient of such radiations by body, is disputed. In this way, the main purpose of this study was introducing a composite shield which is made of tin and tungsten to avoid of drawbacks of using lead shield and evaluate their biological protection. Materials and Methods: Blood samples were taken from non-radiation operatives. Samples poured in heparin tubes and then, exposed to gamma radiation emitted from technetium in intended ranges of time and places after radiation, comet assay was carried out. Data was analyzed by using IBM SPSS Modeler version12 and C5.0 algorithm. Results: density of composite shield was much less than lead shield and about one-tenth of its density (1.23gr/cm3). DNA damage in both groups (with and without a lead shield) is higher in comparison with the lead free group (p

References

  • 1.

    Bogen K. Reassessment of human peripheral T-lymphocyte lifespan deduced from cytogenetic and cytotoxic effects of radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 1993; 64: 195-204.

  • 2.

    Shabestani Monfared A AM, John K. How can the use of radiation in nuclear medicine community's concerns to a reasonable level lowered? Iran Nucl Med J 2002; 19.(Persian).

  • 3.

    Hejazi P SM. Measuring radiation, radiographers and nuclear medicine and radiopharmaceutical enters the two major positions of radiation exposure and the effect of reduction dose syringe shield. Koomesh 2000; 2: 117-123. (Persian).

  • 4.

    Ghazi KM, Zokori R, Sabzevari S. Lead aprons effect of reducing the dose in nuclear medicine department staff. Babol Med Sinsce Univ J 2008; 10: 30-34. (Persian).##.

  • 5.

    Kaewkhao J Pokaipisit A Limsuwan P. Study on borate glass system containing with Bi2O3 and BaO for gamma-rays shielding materials Comparison with PbO. J of Nuc. Mat 2010; 399: 38-40.

  • 6.

    Cournoyer M. Lead substitution and elimination study. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 2001; 249: 397-402.

  • 7.

    McCaffreyJ, Shen H, Downton B, MainegraHing E. Radiation attenuation by lead and nonlead materials used in radiation shielding garments. Med Phys 2007; 34: 530-537.

  • 8.

    Steyn PF, Uhrig J. The role of protective lead clothing in reducing radiation exposurerates to personnel during equine bone scintigraphy.Vet Radiol Ultrasound2005; 46: 529-532.

  • 9.

    Christodoulou EG, Goodsitt MM, Larson SC, Darner KL, Satti J, Chan HP. Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons usedin a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter. Med Phys 2003; 30: 1033-1038.

  • 10.

    Takano Y, Okazaki K, Ono K, Kai M. Experimental and theoretical studies on radiation protective effect of a lighter non-lead protective apron. NihonHoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 2005; 61: 1027-1032.

  • 11.

    khalil TM, Abdel_Moty EM, Rosomoff HL. Back pain, Guide to prevention and Rehablititation Ergonomics New York van Nostrand.1993;100-101.

  • 12.

    Aghamiri M, Mortazavi S, Tayebi M, Mosleh-Shirazi M, Baharvand H, Tavakkoli-Golpayegani A, Zeinali-Rafsanjani B. A novel design for production of efficient flexible lead-free shields against X-ray Photons in Diagnostic Energy Range. J Biomed Phys Eng 2011; 1. (Persian).

  • 13.

    Mozdarani Hosein, Hejazi Ashkan , Hejazi Peyman. Chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes of individuals with chronic exposure to gamma radiation.Archives Of Iranian Medicine 2002; 5: 32-36.

  • 14.

    McKelvey V, Doran K, Higgins F, Butler M, McKenna P. Decreased DNA repair capacity in APRT deficient Friend erythroleukaemia cells following H2O2 treatment. Mutagenesis 1991; 6: 441-442.

  • 15.

    Ostling O, Johanson K. Microelectrophoretic study of radiation-induced DNA damages in individual mammalian cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1984; 123: 291-298.

  • 16.

    Olive PL, Banth JP, Durand RE. Heterogeneity in radiation-induced DNA damage and repair in tumor and normal cells measured using the" comet" assay. Radiat Res 1990; 122: 86-94.

  • 17.

    Olive PL, Banth JP, Durand RE. Detection of etoposide resistance by measuring DNA damage in individual Chinese hamster cells.J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 779-783.

  • 18.

    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; 39: 55-59.

  • 19.

    Zuguchi M, Chida K, Taura M, Inaba Y, Ebata A, Yamada S. Usefulness of non-lead aprons in radiation protection for physicians performing interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 131: 531-534.

  • 20.

    Aminian M, Bakhshandeh M, Allahbakhshian-Farsani M, Bakhshandeh E, Shakeri N. Comparison of the protection performance in a composite shield and a lead standard shield in terms of biological effects in nuclear medicine. Iran J Nucl Med 2017; 25: 129-135. (Persian).