Evaluation of Sensitometric Properties of Radiographic Films at Different Processing Solutions

Authors: Mojiri M, Ghazi Khanloo Sani K, Moghim Beigi A

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to compare the sensitometric properties of commonly used radiographic films processed with chemical solutions in different workload hospitals. The effect of different processing conditions on induced densities on radiologic films was investigated. Two accessible double emulsions Fuji and Kodak films were exposed with 11-step wedge and processed with Champion and CPAC processing solutions. The mentioned films provided in both workloads centers, high and low. Our findings displays that the speed and contrast of Kodak filmscreen in both work load (high and low) is higher than Fuji filmscreen for both processing solutions. However there was significant differences in films contrast for both workloads when CPAC solution had been used (p=0.000 and 0.028). The results showed base plus fog density for Kodak film was lower than Fuji. Generally Champion processing solution caused more speed and contrast for investigated films in different conditions and there was significant differences in 95% confidence level between two used processing solutions (p=0.01). Low base plus fog density for Kodak films provide more visibility and accuracy and higher contrast results in using lower exposure factors to obtain better quality in resulting radiographs. In this study we found an economic advantages since Champion solution and Kodak film are used while it makes lower patient dose. Thus, in a radiologic facility any change in film processor/processing cycle or chemistry should be carefully investigated before radiological procedures of patients are acquired.

Keywords: Sensitometry, densitometry, Radiographic film, processing solution

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1077746

References:

[1] Mangset W.E , Izang N. Locally fabricated metal step wedge for quality assurance in diagnostic radiology. Bajopas 2010 3(1): 156-163.
[2] Br├╝ssau R, Bernhardt J, Goldhammer R and Schmidtke S. Quality assurance in radiology. Edition No 8. Germany 2001. Available at : www.pahamed.de
[3] Changizi V, Jazayeri E, Talaeepour A. A study of densitometry comparison among three radiographic processing solutions. Iran J Radiat. Res 2006, 4(2): 81-86.
[4] Blendl C, Buhr E. Comparison of light and x-ray sensitometric responses of double-emulsion films for different processing conditions. Med phys 2001, 28(12) : 2420-2426.
[5] Thornley P H, Stewardson D A, Rout P G J, Burke F J T. Assessing the quality of radiographic processing in general dental practice. British Dental Journal 2006, 200(9) : 515-519.
[6] Tsalafoutas A, Dimakopoulou AD, Koulentianos E D. Variation of the sensitometric characteristics of seven mammographic films with processing conditions. BJR 2004, 77: 666-671.
[7] Sharma R, Sharma S D. A QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMME FOR MEDICAL X-RAY FILMS IN INDIA. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2011 , doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq595 p : 1-7.
[8] Quality Assurance in Film Processing Sensitometer and Densitometeraccording to IEC 61223-2-1, DIN 6868-2 resp. DIN V 6868-55. IBA Dosimetry 2008. Available at: http://www.ibadosimetry. com/sites/default/files/Sensitometer%20&%20Densitometer_ 5.pdf.
[9] Blendl C, Buhr E. Comparison of light and x-ray sensitometric responses of double-emulsion films for different processing conditions. Med. phys 2001, 28(12): 2420-2426.
[10] Woudenberg V, Thijssen M, Young K. European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. In: Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Kirkpatrick A, To¨rnberg S, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening (3rd Edn). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg, 2001.
[11] Wakoh M, Farman AG, Kitagawa H, Nishikawa K, Kuroyanagi K. A sensitometric comparison of Kodak Ektavision and Fuji Super HR-S panoramic radiographic films. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998, 86(2): 249-253.
[12] Meeson S, Young KC, Rust A, Wallis MG, Cooke J,Ramsdale ML. Implications of using high contrast mammography X-ray film-screen combinations. Br J Radiol 2001, 74: 825-35.
[13] Hydroquinone, A broader perspective. Champion photochemistry. RSNA Chicago Booth 7470, Hall B ,North Bldg. November 2001. Available at: http://www.championphotochemistry.com/_uploads/files/111008144235 _2001-Xpress.pdf
[14] Hekmatian E, Mahdizadeh M, Rostami Gh. Comparison of quality stability of different developer and fixator solutions in processing dental radiographic films. Isfahan Journal of dentistry science 2006 1(2): 15- 18.
[15] Bushong SC. Radiologic Sciences for Technologists, Physics, Biology and Protection. 7th edition, Mosby, 2002, USA.
[16] X-ray chemicals:Devalex and Fixaplus.available at: http://www.championphotochemistry.com/_uploads/files/102208165629 _X2-CP-DEVALEX-E.pdf