Assessment and Data Analysis of X-Ray and CT Room Shielding Efficiency

Al-Yasiri, Amal; Attia, Salim; Neda, Fezaa; Mutlak, Shaimaa; Hussein, Aula

doi:10.25673/123677

Proceedings of International Conference on Applied Innovation in IT · 2026/03/31 · Vol. 14 · Issue 1 · pp. 1045–1051

Assessment and Data Analysis of X-Ray and CT Room Shielding Efficiency

Amal Y. Al-Yasiri, Salim J. Attia, Fezaa Shalal Neda, Shaimaa Sabte Mutlak, Aula T. Hussein and Aya T. Hussein

📄 Download PDF DOI: 10.25673/123677

Abstract

This study evaluated the shielding efficiency of X-ray and CT scanner rooms in governmental and private imaging clinics across Baghdad. Concerns have arisen that some private facilities may not fully comply with shielding requirements recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). The investigation aimed to assess compliance with international dose limits and identify potential safety deficiencies to protect patients, staff, and the public. Measurements of scattered and leakage radiation were conducted using a Geiger–Müller counter in both controlled and uncontrolled areas of multiple clinics. The results revealed that most governmental facilities maintained annual effective doses below NCRP limits, demonstrating adequate shielding performance and adherence to safety standards. However, several private clinics exhibited higher dose rates, particularly within CT-controlled zones and X-ray control rooms, where values reached or exceeded 0.25 mSv/year. In contrast, radiation levels in uncontrolled areas generally remained within safe limits. Overall, governmental clinics showed satisfactory compliance with radiation protection standards, whereas some private facilities displayed deficiencies in shielding effectiveness. These findings highlight the need for stricter regulatory oversight, periodic safety audits, and improved design protocols to ensure optimal radiation protection, particularly within the rapidly expanding private healthcare sector in Iraq.

Keywords

Radiation Protection Shielding Efficiency X-ray Clinics CT Scanner and NCRP Standards.

References

E. Bercovich and M. C. Javitt, “Medical Imaging: From Roentgen to the Digital Revolution, and Beyond,” Rambam Maimonides Med. J., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1–11, 2018, doi: 10.5041/rmmj.10355.
R. Najjar, “Radiology’s Ionising Radiation Paradox: Weighing the Indispensable Against the Detrimental in Medical Imaging,” Cureus, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1–16, 2023, doi: 10.7759/cureus.41623.
J. L. Hussein and S. O. Haji, “Biochemical Study on the Impact of Radiation-induced Oxidative Stress on Radiographers in the X-ray and CT-scan Departments,” Baghdad Sci. J., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 676–680, 2023, doi: 10.21123/bsj.2022.7166.
Q. A. Hassan et al., “Assessment of Awareness and Knowledge among Medical Students Regarding Radiation Exposure from Common Diagnostic Imaging Procedures,” AL-Kindy Coll. Med. J., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 118–122, 2022, doi: 10.47723/kcmj.v18i2.792.
National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements (US), NCRP Report No. 147: Structural Shielding Design for Medical X-Ray Imaging Facilities, 2005.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 103, 2007.
National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements (US), NCRP Report No. 180: Management of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation, 2018.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Technical Cooperation Report on Radiation Safety in Iraq, 2022.
J. M. Bushberg et al., The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, 3rd ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012.
C. Granata et al., “European survey on the use of patient contact shielding during radiological examinations,” Insights Imaging, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s13244-023-01452-3.
R. O. Kosik et al., “APQS consensus regarding patient shielding during routine radiographic imaging,” Br. J. Radiol., vol. 94, no. 1123, pp. 2–4, 2021, doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210252.
M. M. Rehani and P. Ortiz-Lopez, “Radiation effects in fluoroscopically guided cardiac interventions-keeping them under control,” Int. J. Cardiol., vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 147–151, 2006, doi: 10.1016/J.IJCARD.2005.06.015.
H. Behroozi et al., “Evaluation of the Prevalence of Shielding in Patients Undergoing Conventional Radiological Procedures,” J. Patient Saf., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 133–137, 2018, doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000180.
D. Brenner and E. Hall, “Computed tomography—An increasing source of radiation exposure,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 357, no. 22, pp. 2277–2284, 2007, doi: 10.1056/NEJMra072149.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), NCRP Report No. 160: Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, 2009.
R. S. Ali et al., “Computed tomography dose index, dose length product and effective dose for head CT in Iraqi hospitals,” Iraqi J. Sci., Special Issue, pp. 350–361, 2016.
A. M. Mahmoud, “A Comparative Study of Radiation Dose From Chest CT Scan Examinations in Two Imaging Centers in Duhok Province, Kurdistan, Iraq,” Cureus, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 1–7, 2024, doi: 10.7759/cureus.75135.