Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportTech Students Track

Radiation exposure assessment of tungsten vial shields vs. lead glass vial shields.

Lilibeth Ugarte, Bernard McKay, Tim Houston, Lisa Riehle and Gary Dillehay
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (supplement 1) 2159;
Lilibeth Ugarte
1Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
2Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bernard McKay
3Nuclear Medicine - Radiopharmacy Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tim Houston
1Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
2Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa Riehle
1Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
2Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary Dillehay
1Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
2Northwestern Memorial Hospital Chicago IL United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2159

Objectives: Vial shields are an essential component of the radiation safety program in any nuclear pharmacy or nuclear medicine hot lab. Northwestern Memorial Hospital’s standard practice is to use commercially available lead glass vial shields when reconstituting technetium 99m (Tc-99m). As high activity Tc-99m sestamibi kits are prepared on a daily basis, the objective of this study is to evaluate the radiation shielding properties of two commercially available vial shields from Biodex Medical Systems.

Methods: The Biodex High Density Lead Glass Vial Shield (001-075) was evaluated by adding 1,421 mCi of Tc-99m into a 10 mL sterile vial. The Biodex Tungsten Vial Shield (053-805) was evaluated by adding 1,428 mCi of Tc-99m into a 10 mL sterile vial. Measurements were recorded using a Fluke 451B ion chamber to determine the radiation exposure on the surface of both shielding configurations. Following the exposure readings, a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) was placed on each vial shield for 30 minutes. The tungsten shield and the lead glass shield contained 1,404 mCi and 1,405 mCi of Tc-99m, respectively, at the time the TLDs were placed. Following a 30 minute exposure time, TLDs were removed and sent to Landauer for processing and analysis. Results: Ion chamber readings taken at the surface of both the tungsten and lead glass shields were 0.360 mR/h and 13.7 mR/h, respectively. Based on these measurements, the tungsten shield resulted in a 97.4% reduction in surface exposure compared to the lead glass shield. The TLD analysis from Landaur reported “M” (dose equivalents below the minimum measurable quantity of 10 mrem) for the tungsten shield, and 60 mrem exposure for the lead glass shield.

Conclusions: The results demonstrate that tungsten shielding significantly reduces radiation exposure when compared to lead shielding. Based on these findings, Northwestern Memorial Hospital has implemented the use of tungsten vial shields for high activity Tc-99m preparations to minimize radiation exposure and adhere to the ALARA principle.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 59, Issue supplement 1
May 1, 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Radiation exposure assessment of tungsten vial shields vs. lead glass vial shields.
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Radiation exposure assessment of tungsten vial shields vs. lead glass vial shields.
Lilibeth Ugarte, Bernard McKay, Tim Houston, Lisa Riehle, Gary Dillehay
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (supplement 1) 2159;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Radiation exposure assessment of tungsten vial shields vs. lead glass vial shields.
Lilibeth Ugarte, Bernard McKay, Tim Houston, Lisa Riehle, Gary Dillehay
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (supplement 1) 2159;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Tech Students Track

  • Fasting and Warming Prior to Molecular Breast Imaging in Clinical Practice Environment
  • Lu-177 DOTATATE therapy for progressive metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: Multidisciplinary team work and role of technologists, nurses, physicists and physicians.
  • Development of Tc99m DMSA Complex 2 Quality Control Test
Show more Tech Students Track

TS27: Student Tech Papers III

  • Development of Tc99m DMSA Complex 2 Quality Control Test
  • Radiation Exposure to Visitors to Nuclear Medicine Department Waiting Areas
  • Breakdown Significance of MAA in a Syringe and Vial Post Compounding
Show more TS27: Student Tech Papers III

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire