Safety of Ionizing Radiation in Selected Conventional X-ray Diagnostic Centres in Calabar and Uyo metropolises, Nigeria

Ndubuisi O. Chiaghanam; Emmanuel Esien-umo; Michael P. Ogolodom; Caleb Asuquo; Christian Maurice; Efe Omita; Daniel C. Ugwuanyi; Emeka E. Ezugwu

doi:10.19044/esj.2022.v18n21p1

Ndubuisi O. Chiaghanam Department of Radiography and Radiological Science, University of Calabar, Calabar Nigeria
Emmanuel Esien-umo Department of Radiography and Radiological Science, University of Calabar, Calabar Nigeria
Michael P. Ogolodom Department of Radiography and Radiological Science, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nnewi Campus, Nigeria
Caleb Asuquo Department of Radiography and Radiological Science, University of Calabar, Calabar Nigeria
Christian Maurice Department of Radiography and Radiological Science, University of Calabar, Calabar Nigeria
Efe Omita Medical Department Nigeria Agip Oil Company Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria
Daniel C. Ugwuanyi Department of Radiography and Radiological Science, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nnewi Campus, Nigeria
Emeka E. Ezugwu Department of Radiography and Radiological Science, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nnewi Campus, Nigeria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2022.v18n21p1

Keywords: Safety, Radiation, Dose, Annual, Shielding

Abstract

Background: Humans are inevitably exposed to background radiation in work and public environments. The aim of this work is to assess the effectiveness of the secondary barriers in conventional x-ray diagnostic centers in Calabar and Uyo metropolises. This is by determining the weekly and annual effective dose in their respective uncontrolled areas and comparing them with the international recommendations. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in three x-ray diagnostic centers in Calabar, represented as C1, C2, and C3 respectively, and in four xray diagnostic centers in Uyo, represented as U1, U2, U3, and U4 respectively. Background radiation was measured using Radex 1212 A-A battery-powered survey meter, at a distance of 2.5meters away from the xray units. Radiation measurement was taken at three different spots, and the recorded data were analyzed. Results: The mean calculated effective dose per week in mSv/week for each diagnostic center was given as 0.130 ± 0.0068mSv/week. Also, the mean calculated effective dose per year in mSv/year for each center was given as 0.66 ± 0.35mSv/year. These values are below the National Commission on Radiation Protection (NCRP) recommendations of 0.02mSv/week and 1mSv/year respectively. From the results, the mean calculated chance of developing cancer was 2.33 ×10-3% which was lower than the NCRP recommendation for continuous public exposure of 5.5×10-3 %. Conclusion: It could be concluded that the integrity of the shielding designs and their dimensions assessed are safe.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX Statistics

References

1. Spokane Environmental Solutions(2017). Environmental safety.2017. Available from:
https://www.spokaneenvironmental.com. Retrieved on 23rd July 2021.
2. Chiaghanam N.O, Nzotta C C & Enweani IB (2019). Radiation risk assessment of soil in Idomi, Cross River State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences, 07(1): 27-35.
3. Archibong BE, Chiaghanam NO (2020). Radiation emission levels from a waste dumpsite in Calabar, Cross River, Nigeria. Science and Technology 6(21) 20-27.
4. Annemay, E. K.(2018). A safe radiation environment. Journal of Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 25(6): 26-28.
5. 5.ICRP- International Commission on Radiological Protection (1990) Age Dependence Dose to the Member of Public from Intake of Radionuclides. Part 1. International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 56. London: Pergamon Press, Oxford
6. Suraj, R.A.(2012). Effect of application of ionizing radiation (x-ray) in living organisms. The Himalayan Physics 3, 89-92.
7. Ahmed, R.G. (2008). Damage pattern as function of various types of radiations. Medical Journal of Islamic World Academy of Science, 15, 135-147.
8. Mastracci T M (2015). Radiation safety: A call to arms. European Journal VascEndovasc Surgery. 50,1-2.
9. CDCP-Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Radiation and your health. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/decay.htm. Accessed 14th December 2017.
10. Chiegwu H U, Onyeka O J, Ugwuanyi D C, Odunko D D, Ogolodom M P, Mbaba, A N (2021). Assessment of background ionizing radiation exposure levels in industrial buildings in Nnewi, Anambra State, Nigeria. Int J Res Med Sci. 10(2):305-315.
11. Chad-Umoren YE, Adekanmbi M, Harry SO(2007). Evaluation of indoor background ionizing radiation profile of a physics laboratory. Facta University Series: Work. Liv. Environ. Protec. 3(1):1-7.
12. NCRP (1993). Limitations of exposure to ionising radiation. Bethseda, Maryland Report No. 116.
13. ICRP (2007). Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publications. 37(1), 2-4.