Ambient x-ray pollution assessment at inspection gates of airports- a case study of Mehrabad and Imam Khomeini Airports in Iran
© Pourtaghi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014
Received: 20 December 2013
Accepted: 12 April 2014
Published: 28 May 2014
As a well-known, physical carcinogen, ambient X-ray pollution assessment would be of great importance in today’s modern world. Accordingly, the present study was done to measure the exposure level of ambient X-ray at inspection gates of two airports in Iran. According to which, the X-ray was measured at different points of the inspection gates including closed and opened Curtain, as well as seating place of operators beside the X-ray inspection systems. The recorded data were then analyzed by “sign” and t-tests.
The total average exposure level of the measured x-ray was 2.68 ± 0.73 μsv.h-1. The measured x-ray exposure level was 2.07 ± 0.61 (μsv.h-1) released from RAPISCAN X-ray inspection system and 3.3 ± 1.34 (μsv.h-1) emitted from HEIMANN X-ray inspection system. Comparison of average x-ray doses of the systems in both airports showed that the minimum and maximum exposure levels were recorded at 1(m) far from the devices and at the entrance of the devices, respectively.
The exposure levels at all measurement points were lower than the occupational exposure limit. This reveals the fact that the exposed operators are not probably at risk of adverse health effects.
New technologies expose humans to various types of radiation[1, 2]. X-rays are energetic electromagnetic radiations, which can ionize materials by ejecting electrons from atoms. It can cause cancer in exposed individuals and possibly impose harmful genetic mutations in their progeny. The extent of the ionization, absorption and molecular change depends on the quality (distribution of photon energy) and quantity (radiation intensity) of radiation. Living organisms that have exposed to ionizing radiation can be damaged or even die due to severe exposure. Cancer induction is one of the most important somatic risks of low dose ionizing radiation.
The study of Amy and Sarah showed about 0.6% cancer risk in those aged 75 years in UK and 0.6% to 1.8% censer risk in Japan as a result of exposure to diagnostic X-rays. Delia et al. investigated occupational exposure in airport personnel to study the genotoxic and oxidative effects of x-ray. They found that the exposed group have a high mean value of sister chromatid exchange frequency and total structural chromosomal aberrations at particular breaks. The most important characteristic of x-ray is its high penetration and ionization power. Easily passing through solid and liquid media it is used in radiography of different body organs. The x-ray is also used in radiography of metals to detect defected and fractured metal parts.
Nowadays, the use of imaging technologies releasing ionizing radiation for security control of goods, vehicles and persons have been the center of attention. In 2009, Boeing Company estimated that there are 49,000 daily commercial flights around the world. Statistics show that each year 107 pieces of luggage are screened at a large international airport. This number clearly indicates that there is a great demand for security check of passengers’ luggage mainly to avoid smuggling or transporting illegal goods as well as fraud and terrorist threatening. X-ray detection, as the most common way for baggage screening in airports, provides a useful tool for inspecting baggage by which it would be possible to check the content of packages without any damages. There are various x-ray detection techniques, which facilitate inspecting luggage characteristics such as density and effective atomic number. Theoretically, the material type of an object can uniquely be determined by two parameters of density and effective atomic number.
Broad usages of x-ray in different affairs necessitate specific occupational care by the personnel while at work whereas ionizing rays can make serious damages such as different cancers and chromosomal abnormalities as well as cataract, dermal damages, muscular and skeletal disorders. They can also damage thyroid gland and, nervous and reproductive systems. Currently, there are a great number of personnel and passengers exposed to daily radiation released from the x-ray inspection devices in airports. The x-ray damages will be prevented if proper mitigation and preventive strategies are adopted in airports. Baggage x-ray inspection systems must be surveyed regularly. The monitoring frequency depends on the conditions of use, type of x-ray system and performance history. Anyhow, the monitoring frequency should be determined by the relevant authority. X-ray inspection systems must have adequate shielding against radiation to avoid operators or other individuals from being exposed to hazardous ambient radiation.
One of the most important measures in preventing radiation damages is continuous measuring of ambient x-ray to keep it within the permissible limits. The aim of this research was to investigate the x-ray exposure levels at inspection gates of two Airports, Mehrabad and Imam Khomeini.
Materials and methods
This is a cross-sectional study done in autumn 2012 to measure the ambient x-ray exposure level at inspection gates of Mehrabad and Imam Khomeini Airports. There is a Flight Security Unit (FSU) separated as men and women gates in each airport responsible for inspecting passengers and their luggage. Like every other international airports, X-ray inspection systems are used in Mehrabad and Imam Khomeini Airports to inspect baggage of passengers. The FSU in the airports is equipped with inspection devices of RAPISCAN and HEIMANN types.
Location of the X-ray machines as the sampling points
Measuring gates code
According the As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles recommended by International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) for radiological protection, the collective equivalent dose of baggage x-ray inspection systems must be minimized as lowest as possible.
Ambient x-ray radiation results by devices (μsv.h −1 )
Beside the device
The results showed that the x-ray exposure level at all measurement points were lower than the allowable occupational dose of 25 μsv.h-1. In the location of the RAPISCAN device, the maximum and minimum exposure levels were respectively equal to 5 and 1.1 (μsv.h-1) when the device was in “open-curtain” position at men gate and in “closed-curtain” position at women gate (Table 2).
This study showed that the exposure level was lower than the occupational exposure limit at all measurement points. However, the permissible exposure level is substantially higher than that of Radiation Safety Institute of Canada presented the average annual dose of the baggage x-ray devices are less than 0.014 msv.h-1. Additionally, an investigation by NIOSH at 12 airports in America revealed that the exposure dose at 90% of the stations were not measurable while the measured doses at remaining stations were lower than the Threshold Limit Value (TLV).
Statistical test of “sign” shows a significant difference between the average x-ray exposure level (2.68 ± 0.73 μsv.h-1) and the standard dose of 25 μsv.h-1 (P ≤ 0.001). It means that the ambient x-ray is lower than the allowable occupational limit. The average x-ray exposure levels at different positions of open curtain, close-curtain and beside the devices were equal to 4.25 ± 1.75 μsv.h-1, 2.5 ± 1.12 μsv.h-1 and 1.3 ± 0.07 μsv.h-1, respectively. The measured values showed a statistically significant difference with the standard exposure levels (P ≤ 0.001). In other words, the ambient x-ray at inspection gates is lower than the standard limit.
The t-test results indicated that there is a significant difference between the x-ray exposure level at men and women gates (P = 0.015). The average x-ray exposure level at men and women gates were 4.07 ± 1.24 (μsv.h-1) and 1.3 ± 0.13 (μsv.h-1), respectively. This difference can be mainly due to the transportation of the largest packages at men gate and longer “open-curtain” position that cause releasing greater amount of radiation from the devices.
There no significant difference was found between the x-ray exposure level of devices RAPISCAN and HEIMANN (P = 0.699). It is worth mentioning that the average x-ray radiation from the devices RAPISCAN and HEIMANN were equal to 2.07 ± 0.61 μsv.h-1 and 3.3 ± 1.34 μsv.h-1, respectively. The measured values were both lower than the standard occupational limits. Based on the obtained results, the highest x-ray exposure (8.9 μsv.h-1) was measured in “open-curtain” position of the HEIMANN device at men inspection gate which is lower than the standard limit offered by ACCIH in 2012.
According to a study by England et al. on similar devices, the x-ray exposure level was reported between 0–1 μsv.h-1 with no carcinogenic side effects. Arnstein et al. showed that damaging effects of ionizing radiation is higher in people exposed constantly to X-rays for 8 hours. The results of a similar studies done by Tanaka et al. and NIOSH at the Airports Cincinnati, Baltimore, Boston, West Plan Beach, Providence and Miami, on x-ray devices of L3, TEX5500, and CTX2500 types it was revealed that the x-ray exposure levels of were lower than the allowable limits. Zhumadilov et al. reported similar results for the Japan Airport. The above mentioned findings confirm the results of the present study.
In the present study, low doses of ambient x-ray radiation were detected at inspection gates of Mehrabad and Imam Khomeini Airports. Although the measured X-ray is lower than the allowable limits, however, it cannot be regarded completely safe whereas the personnel are exposed to the radiation every day for 8 or even 12 hours. Accordingly, in order to protect the health of Flight Security Unit personnel and prevent them from being over-exposed to ionizing radiation, the use of personal protective equipment at workplace as well as adopting prevention and mitigation measures are of great importance.
As the results suggest, the highest radiation leakage was found at the entrance of the devices while the least leakage was measured beside the devices, at a distance of 1 m surrounding the devices. According to which, it can be concluded that operators receive a greater amount of radiation when standing in front of the devices and doing physical inspection. Therefore, it is recommended that they change their position and keep distance farther from 1 m surrounding the curtains of X-Ray Inspection Box.
The authors gratefully thank the staff and managing director of the Mehrabad and Imam Khomeini Airports Corporation for their sincere assistance in performing the present study and the vital information they provided. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The authors also would like to express their thanks to Engineer Alireza Yazdi for his cooperation for collecting Data in Imam Khomeni Airport.
- Fard MS, Nasiri P, Monazzam MR: Measurement of the magnetic fields of high-voltage substations (230 kV) in Tehran (Iran) and comparison with the ACGIH treshold limit values. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011, 145(4):421–425. 10.1093/rpd/ncq445View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nassiri P, Esmaeilpour MRM, Gharachahi E, Haghighat G, Yunesian M, Zaredar N: Exposure assessment of extremely low frequency electric fields in Tehran, Iran, 2010. Health Physics 2013, 104(1):87–94. 10.1097/HP.0b013e31826f51c1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Louis K, Patricia J, Richard A: Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1994, 5(1):71–84. 10.1016/S1051-0443(94)71456-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Amy B, Sarah D: Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet J 2004, 363: 345–351. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15433-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Delia C, Cinzia LU, Giovanni C, Ivo I, Aureliano C, Barbara P, Bruna R, Massimo G, Sergio I: Occupational exposure in airport personnel: Characterization and evaluation of genotoxic and oxidative effects. Toxicology 2006, 223(1):26–35.Google Scholar
- National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements: Quality Assurance for Diagnostic Imaging. National Council for Radiation Protection & Measurements Report No. 99 2006.Google Scholar
- Hupe O, Ankerhold U: Determination of ambient and personal dose equivalent for personnel and cargo security screening. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2006, 121(4):429–437. 10.1093/rpd/ncl047View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oster C, Strong J: A review of Transportation Security Administration funding 2001–2007. J Transp Secur 2008, 1: 37–43. 10.1007/s12198-007-0008-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liu X, Gale A: Air Passengers’ Luggage Screening: What Is the Difference between Naive People and Airport Screeners? 9th International Conference Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics 2011, 424–431.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wells K, Bradley DA: A review of X-ray explosives detection techniques for checked baggage. Appl Radiat Isot 2012, 70(8):1729–1746. 10.1016/j.apradiso.2012.01.011View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cardarelli J, Achutan C, Burr G: Transportation security Administration Niosh Airport X-ray Study Update. (Niosh) American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition 2004.Google Scholar
- Singh S, Singh M: Explosives detection systems (EDS) for aviation security. Signal Process 2003, 83(1):31–55. 10.1016/S0165-1684(02)00391-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eilbert R, Krug K: Aspects of image recognition in vividtechnology’s dual-energy X-ray system for explosive detection. SPIE 1993, 1824(1):127–143.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Elaine R: Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Physics 2003, 85(1):47–59. 10.1097/00004032-200307000-00011View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- David JB: Are X-ray backscatter scanners safe for airport passenger screening? Radiol J 2011, 259(1):6–10. 10.1148/radiol.11102347View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hsu FY, Lee WF, Tung CJ, Lee JS, Wu TH, Hsu SM, Su HT, Chen TR: Ambient and personal dose assessment of a container inspection site using a mobile X-ray system. Appl Radiat Isot 2012, 70(3):456–461. 10.1016/j.apradiso.2011.10.017View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kaufman L, Karlson WL: An evaluation of airport x-ray backscatter units based on image characteristics. J Transp Secur 2010, 4: 73–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Périard M, Chaloner P: Diagnostic X-ray imaging quality assurance: an overview. J Med Radiat Technol 1996, 27(4):171–177.Google Scholar
- American Conferences of Government Industrial Hygienists: Threshold limits value for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati: American Conferences of Government Industrial Hygienists; 2012.Google Scholar
- International Atomic Energy Agency, International Labour Office: Assessment Of Occupational Exposure Due To External Sources Of Radiation, Iaea Safety Standards Series No. Rs-G-1.3. Vienna: IAEA; 1999.Google Scholar
- Agency IAE: Workplace Monitoring for Radiation and Contamination, Practical Radiation Technical Manual. Vienna: IAEA; 2004.Google Scholar
- International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Reports Series No. 16. In Calibration Of Radiation Protection Monitoring Instruments. Vienna: IAEA; 2000.Google Scholar
- Hargreaves T, Moridi R: X-Ray Safety Awareness Handbook for baggage X-Ray Machine Operators. 2nd edition. Ottawa: Canadian air Transport Security Authority; 2010:25–29.Google Scholar
- Achutan C, Mueller C: Health Hazard Evaluation Report on Evaluation of Radiation Exposure to TSA Baggage Screeners. Washington, DC: NIOSH, Health Hazard Evaluation Report; 2008.Google Scholar
- England G, Keane M: The effect of X-radiation upon the quality and fertility of stallion semen. Theriogenology 1996, 46(1):173–180. 10.1016/0093-691X(96)00152-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pm A, Richards AM, Putney R: The risk from radiation exposure during operative X-ray screening in hand surgery. J Hand Surg 1994, 19(3):393–396. 10.1016/0266-7681(94)90097-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tanaka K, Endo S, Ivannikov A, Toyoda S, Tieliewuhan E, Zhumadilov K, Miyazawa C, Suga S, Kitagawa K, Hoshi M: Study on influence of X-ray baggage scan on ESR dosimetry for SNTS using human tooth enamel. J Radiat Res 2006, 47: 81–83. 10.1269/jrr.47.A81View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhumadilov K, Stepanenko V, Ivannikov A, Zhumadilov Z, Zharlyganova D, Toyoda S, Tanaka K, Endo S, Hoshi M: Measurement of absorbed doses from X-ray baggage examinations to tooth enamel by means of ESR and glass dosimetry. Radiat Environ Biophys 2008, 47(4):541–545. 10.1007/s00411-008-0184-xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.