Abstract:

Purpose
Previous studies have shown the protective capacities of many garments are not clearly and accurately represented by their labels. Non-lead materials have been shown to have highly energy-dependent attenuation and therefore poorly represented by specifications at one or two beam qualities. In addition non-lead materials also require broad-beam measurement geometry to avoid over-estimation of protection due to the presence of fluorescent radiation. In some cases, although labeled Pb equivalence often relates only to overlap zones of vests and skirts, this is not often explicitly disclosed by manufacturers. This study surveyed publicly available information for many garments to determine if their protective capabilities can be adequately evaluated by prospective users without in-house experimental validation.

Material and Methods
Publicly available information for 17 manufacturers and 7 vendors were reviewed for information depicted in Table 1. Lead-containing garments were deemed evaluable for protection if Pb equivalence was tested at one or more energy level and if it was clearly stated whether specifications refer only to overlap-zones. Non-lead aprons were deemed evaluable if they included testing at four or more energy levels with broad beam geometry and there was clarity regarding overlap zones.

Results
Findings are outlined in Table 1. No manufacturer or vendor provided enough useful information to properly evaluate protection provided by their products. None provided enough information to evaluate protection relative to weight, which would be useful for users when choosing a protective garment.

Conclusions
Based on current labeling conventions and practices, garments cannot be adequately evaluated for protection or protection relative to weight, and careful in-house experimental validation is highly recommended to prevent excessive radiation exposures that may go unnoticed.