TY  - JOUR
AU  - Vanhavere, Filip
AU  - Carinou, Eleftheria
AU  - Clairand, Isabelle
AU  - Ciraj-Bjelac, Olivera
AU  - De Monte, F
AU  - Domienik-Andrzejewska, J
AU  - Ferrari, P
AU  - Ginjaume, M
AU  - Hršak, Hrvoje
AU  - Hupe, O
AU  - Knežević, Željka
AU  - O’Connor, U
AU  - Merce, M Sans
AU  - Sarmento, S
AU  - Savary, A
AU  - Siskoonen, T
PY  - 2020
UR  - https://vinar.vin.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/9051
AB  - Medical staff in interventional procedures are among the professionals with the highest occupational doses. Active personal dosemeters (APDs) can help in optimizing the exposure during interventional procedures. However, there can be problems when using APDs during interventional procedures, due to the specific energy and angular distribution of the radiation field and because of the pulsed nature of the radiation. Many parameters like the type of interventional procedure, personal habits and working techniques, protection tools used and X-ray field characteristics influence the occupational exposure and the scattered radiation around the patient. In this paper, we compare the results from three types of APDs with a passive personal dosimetry system while being used in real clinical environment by the interventional staff. The results show that there is a large spread in the ratios of the passive and active devices.
T2  - Radiation Protection Dosimetry
T1  - The use of active personal dosemeters in interventional workplaces in hospitals: comparison between active and passive dosemeters worn simultaneously by medical staff
VL  - 188
IS  - 1
SP  - 22
EP  - 29
DO  - 10.1093/rpd/ncz253
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Vanhavere, Filip and Carinou, Eleftheria and Clairand, Isabelle and Ciraj-Bjelac, Olivera and De Monte, F and Domienik-Andrzejewska, J and Ferrari, P and Ginjaume, M and Hršak, Hrvoje and Hupe, O and Knežević, Željka and O’Connor, U and Merce, M Sans and Sarmento, S and Savary, A and Siskoonen, T",
year = "2020",
abstract = "Medical staff in interventional procedures are among the professionals with the highest occupational doses. Active personal dosemeters (APDs) can help in optimizing the exposure during interventional procedures. However, there can be problems when using APDs during interventional procedures, due to the specific energy and angular distribution of the radiation field and because of the pulsed nature of the radiation. Many parameters like the type of interventional procedure, personal habits and working techniques, protection tools used and X-ray field characteristics influence the occupational exposure and the scattered radiation around the patient. In this paper, we compare the results from three types of APDs with a passive personal dosimetry system while being used in real clinical environment by the interventional staff. The results show that there is a large spread in the ratios of the passive and active devices.",
journal = "Radiation Protection Dosimetry",
title = "The use of active personal dosemeters in interventional workplaces in hospitals: comparison between active and passive dosemeters worn simultaneously by medical staff",
volume = "188",
number = "1",
pages = "22-29",
doi = "10.1093/rpd/ncz253"
}

Vanhavere, F., Carinou, E., Clairand, I., Ciraj-Bjelac, O., De Monte, F., Domienik-Andrzejewska, J., Ferrari, P., Ginjaume, M., Hršak, H., Hupe, O., Knežević, Ž., O’Connor, U., Merce, M. S., Sarmento, S., Savary, A.,& Siskoonen, T.. (2020). The use of active personal dosemeters in interventional workplaces in hospitals: comparison between active and passive dosemeters worn simultaneously by medical staff. in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 188(1), 22-29.
https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncz253

Vanhavere F, Carinou E, Clairand I, Ciraj-Bjelac O, De Monte F, Domienik-Andrzejewska J, Ferrari P, Ginjaume M, Hršak H, Hupe O, Knežević Ž, O’Connor U, Merce MS, Sarmento S, Savary A, Siskoonen T. The use of active personal dosemeters in interventional workplaces in hospitals: comparison between active and passive dosemeters worn simultaneously by medical staff. in Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2020;188(1):22-29.
doi:10.1093/rpd/ncz253 .

Vanhavere, Filip, Carinou, Eleftheria, Clairand, Isabelle, Ciraj-Bjelac, Olivera, De Monte, F, Domienik-Andrzejewska, J, Ferrari, P, Ginjaume, M, Hršak, Hrvoje, Hupe, O, Knežević, Željka, O’Connor, U, Merce, M Sans, Sarmento, S, Savary, A, Siskoonen, T, "The use of active personal dosemeters in interventional workplaces in hospitals: comparison between active and passive dosemeters worn simultaneously by medical staff" in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 188, no. 1 (2020):22-29,
https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncz253 . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Hourdakis, Constantine J.
AU  - Csete, I.
AU  - Daures, J.
AU  - Jarvinen, Hannu
AU  - Mihailescu, L-C
AU  - Sochor, V.
AU  - Novak, L.
AU  - Pedersen, M.
AU  - Kosunen, A.
AU  - Toroi, P.
AU  - Denoziere, M.
AU  - Buermann, L.
AU  - Megzifene, A.
AU  - Einarsson, G.
AU  - Ferrari, P.
AU  - dePooter, J.
AU  - Bjerke, H.
AU  - Brodecki, M.
AU  - Cardoso, J.
AU  - Bercea, S.
AU  - Ciraj-Bjelac, Olivera
AU  - Compel, J.
AU  - Glavič-Cindro, Denis
AU  - Ginjaume, Merce
AU  - Persson, L.
AU  - Grindborg, J-E
PY  - 2015
UR  - https://vinar.vin.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2749
AB  - The EURAMET #1177 project, identified as EURAMET RI(I)-S9 comparison, was the first EURAMET wide scale supplementary comparison in the field of diagnostic radiology for air kerma area product, P-KA, and air kerma, K. It was conducted with the goal of testing the measurement and calibration capabilities for P-KA and K, as well as of supporting the relevant CMCs of the participating laboratories. Two commercial KAP meters and an ionization chamber were selected as transfer instruments and circulated between the 22 European participants. The measurements were performed from April 2011 until July 2012. The stability and the performance of the transfer instruments were tested by the pilot laboratory (IRCL/GAEC-EIM) and few other laboratories as well. The test results revealed that the energy (radiation quality), Q, irradiation area, A, and air kerma rate, K dependences of response of the transfer KAP meters influence the comparison of the results when different measurement conditions were pertained and therefore, appropriate correction factors were obtained and applied to the reported calibration results of the laboratories, when necessary. The comparison reference values (CRVs) for each instrument were determined as the weighted mean of the calibration coefficients of the three participating primary laboratories. The relative standard uncertainty of the CRVs were in the range of (0.4-1.6)% depending on the transfer instruments and beam qualities. The comparison result as the ratio of the corrected calibration coefficient of participant and the respective CRV, and its uncertainty were calculated for all beam qualities and transfer instruments. The informative degrees of equivalence (DoE) were calculated for the refrence RQR 5 beam quality. In case of air kema area product measurements the results for the RADCAL PDC KAP meter were used. The 216 KAP meter calibration results of the two different transfer instruments in terms of air kerma area product were consistent within 5% except 40 results of 8 participants. The 103 air kerma calibration results were consistent within 1.7%, except 10 results of 4 participants.
T2  - Metrologia
T1  - Comparison of air kerma area product and air kerma meter calibrations for X-ray radiation qualities used in diagnostic radiology
VL  - 52
DO  - 10.1088/0026-1394/52/1A/06024
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Hourdakis, Constantine J. and Csete, I. and Daures, J. and Jarvinen, Hannu and Mihailescu, L-C and Sochor, V. and Novak, L. and Pedersen, M. and Kosunen, A. and Toroi, P. and Denoziere, M. and Buermann, L. and Megzifene, A. and Einarsson, G. and Ferrari, P. and dePooter, J. and Bjerke, H. and Brodecki, M. and Cardoso, J. and Bercea, S. and Ciraj-Bjelac, Olivera and Compel, J. and Glavič-Cindro, Denis and Ginjaume, Merce and Persson, L. and Grindborg, J-E",
year = "2015",
abstract = "The EURAMET #1177 project, identified as EURAMET RI(I)-S9 comparison, was the first EURAMET wide scale supplementary comparison in the field of diagnostic radiology for air kerma area product, P-KA, and air kerma, K. It was conducted with the goal of testing the measurement and calibration capabilities for P-KA and K, as well as of supporting the relevant CMCs of the participating laboratories. Two commercial KAP meters and an ionization chamber were selected as transfer instruments and circulated between the 22 European participants. The measurements were performed from April 2011 until July 2012. The stability and the performance of the transfer instruments were tested by the pilot laboratory (IRCL/GAEC-EIM) and few other laboratories as well. The test results revealed that the energy (radiation quality), Q, irradiation area, A, and air kerma rate, K dependences of response of the transfer KAP meters influence the comparison of the results when different measurement conditions were pertained and therefore, appropriate correction factors were obtained and applied to the reported calibration results of the laboratories, when necessary. The comparison reference values (CRVs) for each instrument were determined as the weighted mean of the calibration coefficients of the three participating primary laboratories. The relative standard uncertainty of the CRVs were in the range of (0.4-1.6)% depending on the transfer instruments and beam qualities. The comparison result as the ratio of the corrected calibration coefficient of participant and the respective CRV, and its uncertainty were calculated for all beam qualities and transfer instruments. The informative degrees of equivalence (DoE) were calculated for the refrence RQR 5 beam quality. In case of air kema area product measurements the results for the RADCAL PDC KAP meter were used. The 216 KAP meter calibration results of the two different transfer instruments in terms of air kerma area product were consistent within 5% except 40 results of 8 participants. The 103 air kerma calibration results were consistent within 1.7%, except 10 results of 4 participants.",
journal = "Metrologia",
title = "Comparison of air kerma area product and air kerma meter calibrations for X-ray radiation qualities used in diagnostic radiology",
volume = "52",
doi = "10.1088/0026-1394/52/1A/06024"
}

Hourdakis, C. J., Csete, I., Daures, J., Jarvinen, H., Mihailescu, L., Sochor, V., Novak, L., Pedersen, M., Kosunen, A., Toroi, P., Denoziere, M., Buermann, L., Megzifene, A., Einarsson, G., Ferrari, P., dePooter, J., Bjerke, H., Brodecki, M., Cardoso, J., Bercea, S., Ciraj-Bjelac, O., Compel, J., Glavič-Cindro, D., Ginjaume, M., Persson, L.,& Grindborg, J.. (2015). Comparison of air kerma area product and air kerma meter calibrations for X-ray radiation qualities used in diagnostic radiology. in Metrologia, 52.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/52/1A/06024

Hourdakis CJ, Csete I, Daures J, Jarvinen H, Mihailescu L, Sochor V, Novak L, Pedersen M, Kosunen A, Toroi P, Denoziere M, Buermann L, Megzifene A, Einarsson G, Ferrari P, dePooter J, Bjerke H, Brodecki M, Cardoso J, Bercea S, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Compel J, Glavič-Cindro D, Ginjaume M, Persson L, Grindborg J. Comparison of air kerma area product and air kerma meter calibrations for X-ray radiation qualities used in diagnostic radiology. in Metrologia. 2015;52.
doi:10.1088/0026-1394/52/1A/06024 .

Hourdakis, Constantine J., Csete, I., Daures, J., Jarvinen, Hannu, Mihailescu, L-C, Sochor, V., Novak, L., Pedersen, M., Kosunen, A., Toroi, P., Denoziere, M., Buermann, L., Megzifene, A., Einarsson, G., Ferrari, P., dePooter, J., Bjerke, H., Brodecki, M., Cardoso, J., Bercea, S., Ciraj-Bjelac, Olivera, Compel, J., Glavič-Cindro, Denis, Ginjaume, Merce, Persson, L., Grindborg, J-E, "Comparison of air kerma area product and air kerma meter calibrations for X-ray radiation qualities used in diagnostic radiology" in Metrologia, 52 (2015),
https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/52/1A/06024 . .