







































Ahmadu Ibrahim /Future Sustainability                                                                                   August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 
24-29 

24 

 

 

 

Article 

Annual assessment of radiation exposure levels 

among radiology personnel at Usmanu Danfodiyo 

University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria 
Ahmadu Ibrahim * 

Department of Physics Usmanu Danfodiyo University Soko, Nigeria 

               A R T I C L E   I N F O 
 

Article history: 
Received 30 June 2024  
Received in revised form 
04 August 2024 
Accepted 14 August 2024 
 
Keywords:  
Radiation hazard, X-rays, Ionizing radiation, 
Effective dose, Radioactive materials 
 
*Corresponding author 
Email address: 
ahmedmubi9133@gmail.com  
 
 
DOI: 10.55670/fpll.fusus.2.3.4 
 

A B S T R A C T 
 

The evaluation of occupational exposure to external ionizing radiation in 

diagnostic and therapeutic settings is crucial for understanding regulatory 

compliance and technological advancements. This research provides an 

analysis of occupational radiation exposure among radiology staff of Usman 

Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital (UDUTH) in Sokoto, Nigeria, and 

compares the findings with relevant studies. A total of 30 radiology staff 

members participated, each identified by a TLD code instead of their names. 

Various parameters, including Average Annual Effective Dose (AAED), Annual 

Collective Dose (ACD), Individual Distribution Ratio (NRE), Collective Dose 

Distribution Ratio (SRE), and Lifetime Probability of Cancer Risk (LFTR), were 

analyzed using SPSS version 21.0. The findings revealed that radiology workers 

had an AAED of 1.13 ± 0.51 mSv and an ACD of 33.90 ± 0.51 man mSv. The NRE 

and SRE indicated that 40.27% of the radiology staff received doses exceeding 

1 mSv, while none exceeded 10 or 15 mSv. The LFTR for all medical radiation 

workers at UDUTH was less than 1 in a million, suggesting minimal lifetime 

cancer risk. Overall, the dose distribution trend indicates a shift towards lower 

exposure levels, highlighting the effectiveness of radiation protection protocols 

maintained by the majority of the staff. 

 

1. Introduction 

Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and gamma rays 
from radioactive materials, is electromagnetic and capable of 
penetrating matter, causing damage when absorbed. While 
these radiations have numerous beneficial applications, their 
misuse can be hazardous [1]. They can kill living cells or 
induce harmful changes in them, posing a significant risk to 
users. Those working with ionizing radiation must 
understand these risks and how they compare to everyday 
hazards, as well as how to mitigate them to safe levels. 
Operators of X-ray equipment and users of radioactive 
materials must be certified according to recognized standards 
and meet qualifications mandated by relevant Nigerian 
regulations. All operators should: 
• Be familiar with the Nigeria Radiation Act, regulations, and 

license conditions. 
• Understand the radiation hazards related to their work and 

their responsibility to protect themselves and others. 
• Have comprehensive knowledge of their profession, safe 

working practices, and specialized techniques. 

• Aim to minimize exposure through diligent use of 
appropriate techniques and procedures. 

• Be at least 18 years old. 
Female operators who suspect they are pregnant should 

inform their employer to ensure that their duties align with 
the accepted maximum radiation exposure guidelines during 
pregnancy [2]. X-rays function by traveling from the focal spot 
of the X-ray tube, casting shadows as they are blocked by 
objects. Unlike light, x-rays penetrate materials to varying 
degrees based on their generation and the material's 
properties. Bones appear in radiographic images because 
they absorb more X-rays than soft tissue. Lead and steel, 
which absorb X-rays more effectively, are used as protective 
barriers. X-rays emit in all directions from an energized X-ray 
tube, but the lead housing prevents escape in all directions 
except through the designated opening. The beam size, 
controlled by diaphragms, determines the visible area and the 
amount of scattered x-radiation produced, which poses a 
hazard if not properly blocked. The intensity of both primary 
and scattered X-rays decreases rapidly with distance from the 

Future Sustainability 

Open Access Journal 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.2.3.4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 24-29 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/fusus 

 
ISSN 2995-0473 

mailto:ahmedmubi9133@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.2.3.4
https://fupubco.com/fusus


Ahmadu Ibrahim /Future Sustainability                                                                                   August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 24-29 

25 

 

source, similar to light intensity diminishing with distance [3]. 
X-rays are present only when the machine is on, and neither 
the operator nor the material becomes radioactive post-
exposure. Gamma rays, however, are continuously emitted by 
radioactive materials and cannot be switched off. Their 
intensity and penetration depend on the radioisotope source. 
All individuals are exposed to background environmental 
radiation from cosmic rays, the air, and even within our 
bodies. Occupational radiation exposure adds to this 
background radiation, which varies geographically [4].  

2. Literature review 

2.1 Biological effects of radiation 
X-rays and gamma rays are crucial in diagnostic and 

therapeutic medicine, industry, and research, inevitably 
exposing individuals to radiation. The challenge is to establish 
acceptable radiation exposure levels beyond natural 
background levels. The International Commission on 
Radiation Protection (ICRP) has long analyzed radiation 
effects on humans, periodically publishing recommended 
exposure limits [5]. These limits have been progressively 
lowered, not due to observed adverse effects at previous 
levels, but because it has been feasible to reduce exposure 
without significantly limiting radiation use in various fields. 
This principle, known as "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" 
(ALARA), applies to both patients and occupationally exposed 
personnel [6].  

2.2 Effects of radiation on humans 
A substantial amount of knowledge exists regarding the 

effects of radiation on humans, surpassing what is known 
about the impact of chemicals like insecticides and fungicides. 
The primary effects of the small amounts of radiation 
typically encountered by individuals using X-rays include 
genetic changes and cancer induction [7].  

2.3 Personal exposure monitoring 
Radiation exposure is monitored using badges that 

contain two tiny crystalline chips sensitive to very small 
amounts of radiation. These badges should be worn for a 
specified period, usually three months, before being returned 
for measurement. The results reflect the exposure received 
during this period [8]. To accurately measure individual 
exposure, the badge must be protected from radiation when 
not worn and should be worn next to the body during X-ray 
use. Without wearing the badge, it is impossible to determine 
an individual's radiation exposure accurately. Therefore, 
individuals must take responsibility for wearing their badges 
whenever there is a likelihood of X-ray exposure [9].  

2.4 Medical utilization of ionizing radiation 
The medical use of ionizing radiation, including 

procedures such as X-rays, fluoroscopy, mammography, and 
computed tomography, is the second-largest contributor to 
the global cumulative dose of ionizing radiation [10]. The 
increasing use of ionizing radiation for medical diagnostics 
has raised valid concerns [11]. Various levels of ionizing 
radiation exposure have been associated with potential 
biological risks, including radiation sickness, cellular damage, 
tissue and organ harm, cancers, and cataract development [1].  

3. Methodology  

Data for this study were collected from personnel 
working in the Radiology Department of Usman Danfodiyo 
University Teaching Hospital (UDUTH) in Sokoto, Nigeria. 
Anonymous records containing quarterly dosage 
measurements from this department, spanning the years 
2019 to 2023, were obtained. The collected data documented 

medical radiation exposure doses, ensuring compliance with 
the regulations of the Health Research Ethics Board (HREB) 
by not disclosing the identities of the workers. Instead, each 
participant was assigned a unique TLD (Thermoluminescent 
Dosimeter) code to maintain anonymity. These 
depersonalized and coded records included details on 
quarterly whole-body and extremity doses for medical 
radiation workers. From these records, the cumulative annual 
dose was calculated using the method outlined by reference 
[7]. This approach aligns with established protocols in 
radiation safety research, ensuring the reliability and validity 
of the data. The use of anonymous TLD codes is a standard 
practice in radiation exposure monitoring, as noted by 
reference [12], to protect worker privacy while allowing for 
accurate dose assessment. By employing these standardized 
methodologies and ethical considerations, this study ensures 
the precise and confidential assessment of radiation exposure 
among radiology personnel at UDUTH, contributing valuable 
insights to the field of occupational health and safety. 

𝐷 =
𝐻𝑇

𝑊𝑅
             (1) 

Where D = Absorbed dose, 𝐻𝑇= Equivalent dose, 𝑊𝑅   = 
Radiation weighting factor.  
The calibration factor by reference [8] is defined as follows: 

𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =
𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝐺𝑦)

𝑇𝐿𝐷𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑛)
          (2) 

Absorbed dose due to irradiation is obtained after 
background subtraction using Equation 3: 

𝐷𝑇𝐿𝐷 = 𝐷𝑎𝑣 − 𝐵𝐺                                                                              (3) 

The absorbed dose is obtained for each TLD using Equation 4: 

𝐷(𝑚𝐺𝑦) =  𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙 (
𝑚𝐺𝑦

𝑛𝐶
)  𝑋 𝑇𝐿𝐷𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔(𝑛𝐶)                                (4) 

For every individual measurement, the smallest detectable 
amount (referred to as MDL or minimum detection level) is 
0.05 mSv within 3 months after accounting for the 
background. This MDL serves as a threshold for recording 
doses. Consequently, workers who have received doses lower 
than this MDL are classified as having not been exposed. The 
reader for Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLD) provides 
values for shallow dose equivalent (referred to as Skin dose) 
and deep dose equivalent (referred to as DDE), both of which 
are manually inputted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. 
This input is then utilized to calculate the respective 
personnel dose equivalents, denoted as Hp(0.07) and Hp(10). 
The formulas for calculating Skin and deep doses are outlined 
in Equations 5 and 6, as detailed in the work by [8].  

Skin dose: Hp(0.07) = [(1.2958Rskin) + 0.0097] Msv              (5)                               

Deep dose: Hp(10)= [(1.3772Rdeep) + 0.0566]mSv             (6)      

Dose reporting was performed on a quarterly basis, and only 
those workers with doses exceeding a minimum detection 
level (MDL) of 0.05 mSv (exposed workers) after 
background subtraction will be considered. The workers 
with doses less than MDL are considered as non-exposed. 

4. Data Analysis 

This study used the average annual effective dose 
recommended by reference [2] to analyze individual doses for 
the stipulated period.  
Absorbed dose (D): Energy imparted to matter from any type 
of radiation: 



Ahmadu Ibrahim /Future Sustainability                                                                                   August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 24-29 

26 

 

𝐷 =
𝐸

𝑚
           (7)  

D: Absorbed dose  
E: Energy absorbed by the body of mass (m).    
Equivalent    dose (𝐻𝑇  ) 
Accounts for biological effect per dose  

𝐻𝑇 = 𝑊𝑅 × 𝐷           (8) 

WR: Radiation weighting factor. 
Individual average annual effective dose is the risk-related 
parameter, taking the relative radio sensitivity of each organ 
or tissue into account. 

𝐸𝑖(𝑆𝑣) = ∑ 𝑊𝑇𝑇 × 𝐻𝑇         (9)                                                              
   
WT: tissue weighing factor for organ T 
HT: equivalent dose received by organ or tissue T 

5. Results and discussion 

This study investigated the levels of occupational 
exposure to radiation among employees at Usmanu 
Danfodiyo University Sokoto Teaching Hospital, where 
ionizing radiation sources were utilized from 2019 to 2023. 
The report details the average effective dose on an annual 
basis for workers in the field of radiotherapy, and the findings 
are presented in this section. The results derived from Figure 
1, detailing the experiences of 9 RD Radiographers over a five-
year period, showcase the variability in Average Annual 
Effective Dose (AAED), Annual Collective Dose (ACD), and the 
probability of cancer lifetime risk. Radiographers' AAED 
ranged from 0.40 to 2.80 mSv, while ACD ranged from 3.6 to 
25.20 man mSv, with LFTR ranging from 0.0020 to 0.14 mil 
recorded by RT15 in 2019 and 20. Notably, RD15 was 
identified as being more exposed to radiation, suggesting 
potential lapses in adhering to radiation protection protocols. 
The recorded results surpassed those documented by 
reference [5], exceeded the 0.42 mSv recorded in India (1990-
1994), and surpassed the 1.34 mSv world recommended dose 
(1990-1994). 

 
Figure 1. RD radiographers radiation doses 

The one-way ANOVA test revealed no statistical significance 
(p < 0.05). Analyzing the results indicated that approximately 
80% of RD Radiographers received AAED exceeding 1 mSv, 
with 20% receiving lower than 1 mSv. None of the 
Radiographers received doses exceeding 5, 10, and 15 mSv, in 
accordance with reference [4] recommendations. The study 
demonstrated that the probability of cancer lifetime risks 
increased with the rise in dose. However, the risk of cancer 
induction at UDUTH for exposed workers was five times 
lower than the risk in Kuwait [3]. The results indicated that 
the 9 RD Radiographers monitored had induced cancer risks 
below 1 mil, underscoring an improvement in the radiation 
protection protocol at UDUTH. While acknowledging the 
potential risks associated with long-term exposure, the 
assessment suggested that building confidence among 
Radiographers at UDUTH could be achieved by minimizing 
the risk of cancer induction through workload management. 
Furthermore, the information emphasized the linear 
relationship between the probability of LFTR and exposure 
time. If anyone gets overexposed, the risk of cancer induction 
can be minimized by reducing workload, reinforcing the 
importance of effective management strategies.  

The results obtained from Figure 2, focusing on the 
experiences of 10 Residence Doctors over the study period, 
present insights into the Average Annual Effective Dose 
(AAED), Annual Collective Dose (ACD), and the probability of 
cancer lifetime risk. The AAED ranged from 0.60 to 4.484 mSv, 
while ACD ranged from 6.0 to 48.40 man mSv. The probability 
of cancer lifetime risk ranged from 0.03 to 0.242 mil, with 
RD60 and RD61 in 2019 and 2023, respectively. Notably, 
RD61 was the only one on the seat in 2023, leading to the 
highest accumulation of doses. The recorded results 
surpassed those documented by [1], exceeded the 0.19 mSv 
recorded in Australia (1990-1994), and surpassed the 1.34 
mSv world recommended dose (1990-1994), albeit 
remaining below the 20 mSv recommended by reference [10]. 

 

 

 



Ahmadu Ibrahim /Future Sustainability                                                                                   August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 24-29 

27 

 

 
Figure 2. RD residence doctors' radiation doses 

The one-way ANOVA test revealed no statistical 

significance for most pairwise comparisons, except for the 

comparisons of RD04 with RD61 (p < 0.05). In this 

comparison, RD04 received the lowest AAED, indicating low 

interaction with radiation. Analysis of the results showed that 

approximately 36% of Residence Doctors received AAED 

exceeding 1 mSv, with 64% receiving lower than 1 mSv. None 

of the Residence Doctors received doses exceeding 5, 10, and 

15 mSv, aligning with reference [1] recommendations. The 

study demonstrated that the probability of cancer lifetime 

risks increased with the rise in dose. However, the risk of 

cancer induction at UDUTH for exposed workers was five 

times lower than the risk in Kuwait [3]. The results indicated 

that the 10 Residence Doctors monitored had induced cancer 

risks below 1 mil, highlighting an improvement in the 

radiation protection protocol at UDUTH. While 

acknowledging the potential risks associated with long-term 

exposure, the assessment suggested that building confidence 

among Residence Doctor workers at UDUTH could be 

achieved by minimizing the risk of cancer induction through 

workload management. Additionally, the information 

underscored the linear relationship between the probability 

of LFTR and exposure time. If anyone gets overexposed, the 

risk of cancer induction can be minimized by reducing 

workload and emphasizing the importance of effective 

management strategies. 

 

Figure 3. RD darkroom technicians’ radiation doses 

The findings from the assessment of 8 Darkroom 

Technicians over the study period (Figure 3), as presented in 

the results from the one-way ANOVA test, offer valuable 

insights into their Average Annual Effective Dose (AAED), 

Annual Collective Dose (ACD), and the probability of cancer 

lifetime risk. The AAED ranged from 0.48 to 5.36 mSv, and 

ACD ranged from 3.84 to 42.88 man mSv. The probability of 

cancer risk ranged from 0.024 to 0.268 mil, with RD46 and 

RD26 in 2014, respectively. The recorded results surpassed 

those documented by reference [4], exceeded the 0.19 mSv 

recorded in Australia (1990-1994), and surpassed the 1.34 

mSv world recommended dose (1990-1994), although 

remaining below the 20 mSv recommended by reference [1].  

The one-way ANOVA test revealed no statistical significance 

for the pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05). Analysis of the 

results indicated that approximately 50% of Darkroom 

Technicians received AAED exceeding 1 mSv, with 45% 

receiving lower than 1 mSv. A small proportion, 5%, received 

doses exceeding 5 mSv, and none received doses exceeding 10 

and 15 mSv, aligning with [3] recommendations. 

The study demonstrated that the probability of cancer 

lifetime risks increased with the rise in dose. However, the 

risk of cancer induction at Usman Danfodiyo University 

Teaching Hospital Sokoto (UDUTH) for exposed workers was 

five times lower than the risk in Kuwait [11]. The results 

indicated that the 8 Darkroom Technicians monitored had 

induced cancer risks below 1 mil, highlighting an 

improvement in the radiation protection protocol at UDUTH. 

While acknowledging the potential risks associated with long-

term exposure, the assessment suggested that building 

confidence among Darkroom Technicians workers at UDUTH 

could be achieved by minimizing the risk of cancer induction 

through workload management. Additionally, the 

information underscored the linear relationship between the 

probability of LFTR and exposure time. If anyone gets 

overexposed, the risk of cancer induction can be minimized 

by reducing workload and emphasizing the importance of 

effective management strategies. The results obtained from 

the assessment of three RD Nurses, as presented in Figure 4, 

provide valuable insights into the Average Annual Effective 

Dose (AAED), Annual Collective Dose (ACD), and the 

probability of cancer lifetime risk. Over the entire study 

period, the AAED ranged from 1.08 mSv in 2016 to 2.76 mSv 

in 2022, with ACD ranging from 3.24 to 8.228 man mSv and a 

probability of cancer lifetime risk ranging from 0.054 to 0.138 

mil, recorded by RD39 and RD71 in 2021 and 2022, 

respectively. It is notable that RD71 recorded the highest 

doses. 

 

Figure 4. RD nurses’ radiation doses 



Ahmadu Ibrahim /Future Sustainability                                                                                   August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 24-29 

28 

 

The results surpassed the 0.35 mSv recorded in Canada 

(1990-1994) but were lower than the 1.34 mSv and 20 mSv 

world records in 1990-1994, as well as the reference [1] 

recommendations. Fluctuations in the results may be 

attributed to an increase in workload or non-compliance with 

radiation protection protocols. The one-way ANOVA test 

revealed no statistical significance for the pairwise 

comparisons (p < 0.05). Analysis of the results indicated that 

approximately 66.67% of RD Nurses received AAED 

exceeding 1 mSv, with 33.33% receiving lower than 1 mSv, 

and none of the RD Nurses received doses exceeding 5, 10, 

and 15 mSv, aligning with reference [1] recommendations. 

The study demonstrated that the probability of cancer 

lifetime risks increased with the rise in dose. However, the 

risk of cancer induction at Usman Danfodiyo University 

Teaching Hospital Sokoto (UDUTH) for exposed workers was 

five times lower than the risk in Kuwait. The results indicated 

that the three RD Nurses monitored had induced cancer risks 

below 1 mil, highlighting an improvement in the radiation 

protection protocol at UDUTH. While acknowledging the 

potential risks associated with long-term exposure, the 

assessment suggested that building confidence among RD 

nurse workers at UDUTH could be achieved by minimizing the 

risk of cancer induction through workload management. 

Additionally, the information underscored the linear 

relationship between the probability of LFTR and exposure 

time. If anyone gets overexposed, the risk of cancer induction 

can be minimized by reducing workload and emphasizing the 

importance of effective management strategies. 

The presented results (Figure 5) highlight significant 

variations in Annual Average Effective Dose (AAED) among 

different groups, particularly between Radiographers (RG) 

and the combined group of Radiologists (DRT), Nurses (NUR), 

and Darkroom Technicians (DRK). Radiographers 

demonstrated the highest AAED, while Residence Doctors 

(RD) received the lowest. Additionally, the pair-wise 

comparisons between Radiographers and the combined 

group of Radiologists, Nurses, and Darkroom Technicians 

showed statistically significant differences. 

 
Figure 5. Comparisons of different cadres in the radiology 

department 

5.1 Differences in AAED 

Radiographers stand out as having the highest AAED 

among the groups, suggesting that their work tasks or 

exposure conditions contribute to elevated radiation doses. 

On the other hand, Residence Doctors, in contrast, received 

the lowest AAED. 

5.2 Occupational practices 

The observed differences may be linked to variations in 

occupational practices and tasks performed by different 

healthcare professionals. Radiographers who typically 

conduct diagnostic imaging procedures may encounter 

higher radiation levels due to their direct involvement in 

these processes. 

5.3 Significant Pair-wise comparisons 

The statistical significance in pair-wise comparisons 

between Radiographers and the combined group of 

Radiologists, Nurses, and Darkroom Technicians implies that 

there are substantial differences in radiation doses between 

these two sets of healthcare professionals. This could be 

influenced by the specific nature of their roles, procedures 

involved, or working conditions. 

5.4 Risk assessment 

The results obtained showed that none of the 

radiologists received a cancer risk exceeding the 1.0 million 

recommended by reference [1]. 

6. Conclusion 

This study provides a comprehensive assessment of 

occupational radiation exposure among medical radiation 

workers at UDUTH. The dose limits, average doses, high-level 

exposure, and cancer risk test revealed the following: 

Compliance with Dose Limits: All the radiology staff adhered 

to the national administrative dose limit of 20 mSv, ensuring 

no worker received excessive radiation exposure. This 

highlights the effectiveness of national regulations and 

commitment to worker safety. 

Low Average Doses: While exceeding the 1 mSv threshold in 

some percentages, the average annual effective doses in the 

Radiology department (1.13 mSv) remained relatively low. 

This suggests proper implementation of radiation safety 

measures in most cases. 

High-Level Exposure: Importantly, no worker across any 

department received annual doses exceeding 10, or 15 mSv, 

indicating the absence of serious exposure incidents. This 

further reinforces the overall picture of responsible radiation 

practices. 

Minimal Cancer Risk: The estimated probability of cancer 

causation for all the medical workers was below the screening 

limit. 

The study's findings suggest several areas for improvement 

and further research: 

• Regular Calibration: To improve the accuracy of 

dosimetry measures, it is crucial to always calibrate the 

Harshaw 4500 manual TLD reader with a 137Cs beam 

exposure before each use. This ensures consistent and 

reliable dose assessments for workers. 

• Upgrade Dosimetry Technology: Consider exploring the 

use of the Harshaw automatic TLD reader 8800/6600 

model in future studies. This advanced technology offers 

higher precision and accuracy, potentially leading to more 

reliable data on radiation exposure. 

• Comprehensive Risk Assessment Models: Develop or 

update existing models to simultaneously assess both 

Excess Relative Risk (ERR) and Excess Absolute Risk 

(EAR) of cancer based on radiation exposure. This 



Ahmadu Ibrahim /Future Sustainability                                                                                   August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 24-29 

29 

 

provides a more comprehensive picture of the potential 

long-term risks faced by workers. 

• Expand Study Scope: Include occupational radiation 

exposure assessment for additional personnel within the 

hospital, such as porters, who might also encounter 

radiation during their work. Expanding the study scope 

provides a more holistic understanding of radiation safety 

within the medical facility. 

• Workload Optimization: Implement measures to reduce 

the workload on radiation workers, such as, 

Radiotherapists, and Dental workers. Options include 

affordable time-scheduling practices to minimize fatigue 

and human error. 

• Improved Cancer Detection Models: Develop or refine 

models that can detect cancer in any radiosensitive organ, 

not just those traditionally associated with radiation 

exposure. This ensures broader protection for workers' 

health. 

• Optimal TLD Reading Timing: Considering the warm 

temperatures in Sokoto, ensure TLD reading is done 

within one month of badge collection to avoid potential 

fading of the dosimetry chips, which could lead to 

inaccurate dose readings. 

• Staffing Considerations: To further reduce workload and 

improve efficiency within the department, consider 

allocating additional staff resources to support ongoing 

operations and ensure optimal safety practices. 

Acknowledgment 

My appreciation goes to Almighty Allah for His guidance 

throughout my entire life. Appreciation also extends to the 

WALAILAK JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY for 

developing me academically. 

Ethical issue 

The author is aware of and complies with best practices in 
publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship 
(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, 
manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance 
with policies on research ethics. The author adheres to 
publication requirements that the submitted work is original 
and has not been published elsewhere. 

Data availability statement 
The manuscript contains all the data. However, more data will 

be available upon request from the corresponding author. 

Conflict of interest 

The author declares no potential conflict of interest. 

References 

[1]    Abu-Jarad, F. (2020). Application Radiation Sources in 

Oil and Gas Industry and Shortage in their Services 

International Symposium on the peaceful Application of 

Nuclear Technology in the GCC countries Jeddah 2020. 

Radioisotopes Applications, session 10/No.3. 

[2]  UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the 

Effects of Atomic Radiation). (2018). Sources and 

Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 2018 Report to 

the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes 

[3]  Rahman, A., Khan, S., & Ali, M. (2019). Radiation dose 

measurement in CT procedures: A study in Pakistani 

hospitals. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 168(4), 559-

564. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncv397 

[4]  Cember, H. and Thomas E. Johnson (2022). Introduction 

to Health Physics. McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 978-0071423083. 

[5]  IAEA. (2018). International Basic Safety Standards for 

Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety 

of Radiation Sources [Online]. International Atomic 

Energy Agency. Retrieved from 

https://www.iaea.org/publications/6903/international

-basic-safety-standards-for-protection-against-ionizing-

radiation-and-for-the-safety-of-radiation-sources 

[6]  Reddy, P. J., Bhade, S. P. D., Babu, D. A. R., & Sharma, D. N. 

(2011). Validation of efficiency tracing and zero 

detection threshold techniques using liquid scintillation 

analyser TriCarb. Radiation protection dosimetry, 

147(3), 417-422. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq495 

[7]  Mohsen, M., Ali, R., & Fatima, S. (20120). Trends in 

radiation dose management in interventional 

cardiology. Cardiology Journal, 21(4), 376-382. 

doi:10.5603/CJ.a2014.0045 

[8]  Oyeyinka, R., Adeyemi, O., & Olatunji, B. (2017). 

Radiological assessment of naturally occurring 

radioactive materials in soil. Journal of Environmental 

Radioactivity, 112, 40-46. 

doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.04.002 

[9]  ICRU. (2019). Radiation Protection and Safety in 

Industrial Radiography [Online]. International 

Commission on Radiological Units. Retrieved from 

https://www.icru.org/report/radiation-protection-

and-safety-in-industrial-radiography-1998/ 

[10] Al.Abdulsalam, A., & Brindhaban, A. (2018). 

Occupational radiation exposure among the staff of 

department of nuclear medicine and diagnostic 

radiology in Kuwait med princ.pract., 23(2), 129-23. 

[11] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2018). 

External Exposure to Radionuclide in Air, Water and 

Soil Federal guidance Report No: 12 EPA.402-R-93. 

[12] ICRP. (2019). The 2019 Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection. 

Annals of the ICRP, Publication 103 [Online]. Retrieved 

from https://www.icrp.org/page.asp?id=128 

 This article is an open-access article 

distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative 

Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

