# Evaluation of Operator and Patient Doses after Irradiation with Handheld X-ray Devices
## 4 Discussion
Obtaining quite different results after the measurements made on the devices can be explained by the fact that the primary protectors constituting the internal structure of the devices are different, and the fact that the devices differ from each other in terms of shape causes different holding positions. Due to these different grips (Rextar X is used with one hand), the lowest value in the left hand was measured as 8.6 \(\mu\)Gy in protected R irradiation in the Rextar X device. The highest value in the left-hand region was measured as 71.7 \(\mu\)Gy in the unprotected C irradiation of the Diox 602 device. In the study of [PERSON] et al. [23], the focus was on the frequently utilized DX3000 and Rextar brand portable X-ray devices in Korea, with dose measurements carried out using the ion chamber method. The areas evaluated for radiation exposure on the operator included the hands, waist, and chest regions. Various configurations were tested: both long and short cones, with and without acrylic shielding, and with and without lead gloves. The results indicated that employing long cones reduced radiation doses by 48-52%, wearing lead gloves led to a 26-31% reduction, and the inclusion of an acrylic protective shield resulted in a 23-32% dose reduction compared to short cone usage. In our analysis, the differential efficacy of lead gloves, compared to [PERSON] et al. 's findings, may be attributed to varying lead content and the use of distinct glove brands. Table 6 presents the measurement outcomes from the hands, eyes, thyroid, and gonad regions when protective measures were implemented. While [PERSON] et al. conducted measurements both with and without a protective disc, in the current study, TLDs were positioned both in front and behind this disc. Particularly for the NOMAD Pro 2 TM device, where the protective disk is a fixed feature, our irradiation studies were conducted in this manner. It was found that the radiation dose in the region just behind the protective disc was reduced by approximately \(85\pm 5\%\). [PERSON] et al. [12] used the NOMAD Pro 2 TM device and the operator held the handheld X-ray device in 3 different positions and irradiated it. In the thyroid region, the highest recorded exposure was for Test 1 (0.0043 mGy), but fewer values were observed in Test 2 (0.0023 mGy) and Test 3 (0.0013 mGy) measurements. The index finger (representative trigger finger) of the right hand recorded a similar exposure for Test 1 (0.0120 mGy) and Test 2 (0.0117 mGy), but a lower exposure for Test 3 (0.0070 mGy). The palm of the left hand recorded a variable amount of exposure across all tests; the highest recorded exposure was in Test 3 (0.0310 mGy). Higher values were observed in the lumbar region in Test 3 (0.0110 mGy) and, subsequently, in Test 1 (0.0057 mGy). In the feet region, 0.0047 mGy and 0.0030 mGy were recorded in Test 1 and Test 2, respectively. In the present study, the highest value (0.0305 mGy) in the thyroid region was measured in C irradiations in the NOMAD Pro 2 TM device. The values observed in P and R irradiations are 0.0267 mGy and 0.0215, respectively. In Rextar X and Diox 602 devices, it is 0.0182 mGy and 0.0208 mGy on average, respectively. In the right-hand region, the highest value was measured as 0.0253 mGy in C irradiations in the NOMAD Pro 2 TM device. The values observed in P and R irradiations are 0.0236 mGy and 0.0195 mGy, respectively. In Rextar X and Diox devices, it is 0.1155 mGy and 0.0499 mGy on average, respectively. The difference observed between the devices in the hands area in our study may be due to the differences in device internal structures, device designs, and materials and protectors used in device production. In a study by [PERSON] et al. [24], the scatter radiation emanating from the handheld X-ray device, NOMAD Pro 2 TM, and the subsequent exposure risk to the operator were examined utilizing the ionization chamber technique. Their findings posited that the device does not amplify the risk to the operator when operated within the guidelines set by the manufacturer.