Comparison of the ICRP 60 and ICRP 103 Recommendations on the Determination of the Effective Dose from Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography

DOI: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2015.42021   PDF   HTML   XML   5,994 Downloads   7,987 Views   Citations

Abstract

The effective dose takes into consideration the amount of absorbed dose received by tissues, individual organs and also organ’s radiosensitivity. This study concentrates on the Commission’s regulations of 1991 and 2007 tagged ICRP 60 and ICRP 103 respectively, and seeks to suggest the better guideline for determination of detriment to patient especially from abdominopelvic computed tomography. With mean totals of 375.0 mSv for the ICRP 60 and 341.3 mSv for the ICRP 103 obtained from abdominopelvic computed tomography involving 20 different patients, a T-test calculated value of 6.716 was obtained and compared with the value in the T-table at 95% confidence limit and 18 degrees of freedom to confirm whether there is a significant difference in both ICRP 60 and 103 recommendations in the determination of the effective dose. Finally, it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the ICRP 60 and ICRP 103 as fewer effective doses are obtained from the ICRP 103 recommendations and this difference verifies that the ICRP 103 is more suitable for the determination of the effective dose.

Share and Cite:

Obed, R. , Ogbole, G. and Majolagbe, S. (2015) Comparison of the ICRP 60 and ICRP 103 Recommendations on the Determination of the Effective Dose from Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 4, 172-176. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2015.42021.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] McCollough, C.H. and Schueler, B.A. (2000) Calculation of Effective Dose. Medical Physics, 27, 828-837.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598948
[2] Wall, B., Harrison, R. and Spiers, F. (1988) Patient Dosimetry Techniques in Diagnostic Radiology. Report No. 53, The Institute of Physical Science in Medicine, York.
[3] Sarkar, P.K. (2010) Concept and Computation of Radiation Dose at High Energies. Radiation Protection and Environment, 33, 160-161.
[4] Mukundan Jr., S., Wang, P.I. and Frush, D.P. (2007) MOSFET Dosimetry for Radiation Dose Assessment of Bismuth Shielding of the Eye in Children. AJR, 188, 1648-1650.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.1146
[5] Majolagbe, S.B., Faromika, O.P. and Jeje, S.O. (2014) Determination of Natural Radioactivity in Soil Samples of Some Locations in Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 5, 1454-1457.
[6] ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission of Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP, 37, 2-4.
[7] ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103, Annals of the ICRP, 103, 1-7.
[8] Lazo, E.N. (2007) The International Systems of Radiological Protection: Key Structures and Current Challenges. Nuclear Law Bulletin, 2007, 49-63.
[9] ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection (1990) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
[10] Makinson, K.A. (2009) Tissue Weighting Factors for Radiation Protection: Derivation and Parametric Analysis. Oregon State University, Oregon, 2-3.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.