## 3 Results
#### 3.4.4. [PERSON] et al. Occupational Effective Dose Estimation Algorithm [33]  
The effective dose estimates (double dosimetry method) employing the [PERSON] et al. algorithm are illustrated in Figure 8. In contrast to the NCRP algorithm, the Clerinx et al. algorithm estimated doses are substantially higher than the effective dose measurements Hp(10) and marked as significantly different at \(p<0.05\). For instance, this algorithm estimated an effective dose of 0.03 uSv during \({}^{99m}\)Tc-MDP intravenous administration. This is 67% higher than the effective dose measurement of 0.02 uSv. However, the most significant difference was at patient discharge. Additionally, the Clerinx et al. algorithm estimated a dose of 0.04 uSv, having a 104% difference compared with the measured actual effective dose of 0.01 uSv. Therefore, the risk of applying the Clerinx et al. algorithm is that the effective dose could be overestimated. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Step**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Actual Measurement**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Effective Dose (\#Sv)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(H_{p,c,\text{\mu}}\)**Sv** & \(H_{p,\text{\mu},0}\) **(\#Sv)** & **ICRP 60 \({}^{*}\)** & **ICRP 103 \({}^{**}\)** \\ \hline Labeling & \(23.93\pm 1.00\times 10^{-3}\) & \(33.12\pm 1.35\times 10^{-3}\) & \(13.85\pm 1.36\times 10^{-3}\) & \(14.38\pm 1.60\times 10^{-3}\) \\ Quality control & \(22.74\pm 1.78\times 10^{-3}\) & \(33.48\pm 1.21\times 10^{-3}\) & \(13.29\pm 0.14\times 10^{-3}\) & \(13.82\pm 0.53\times 10^{-3}\) \\ Syringe preparation & \(21.32\pm 0.30\times 10^{-3}\) & \(22.57\pm 0.21\times 10^{-3}\) & \(11.89\pm 0.48\times 10^{-3}\) & \(12.25\pm 0.77\times 10^{-3}\) \\ Patient administration & \(20.44\pm 0.88\times 10^{-3}\) & \(21.73\pm 1.29\times 10^{-3}\) & \(11.41\pm 4.30\times 10^{-3}\) & \(11.75\pm 8.30\times 10^{-3}\) \\ Imaging & \(32.71\pm 3.14\times 10^{-3}\) & \(53.80\pm 2.36\times 10^{-3}\) & \(19.47\pm 4.90\times 10^{-3}\) & \(20.33\pm 6.40\times 10^{-3}\) \\ Patient discharge & \(24.86\pm 1.80\times 10^{-3}\) & \(32.70\pm 0.38\times 10^{-3}\) & \(14.27\pm 1.44\times 10^{-3}\) & \(14.80\pm 0.17\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{*}\) Algorithm according to ICRP 60 in cases where two dosimeters are employed without thyroid protection: \(E=\left[(0.64\pm 0.15)H_{p,c,\text{\mu}}(10)\right]+\left[(0.073\pm 0.009)H_{p, \text{\mu}}(10)\right]\)\({}^{**}\) Algorithm according to ICRP 103 in cases where two dosimeters are employed without thyroid protection: \(E=\left[(0.60\pm 0.11)H_{p,c,\text{\mu}}(10)\right]+\left[(0.094\pm 0.014)H_{p, \text{\mu}}(10)\right]\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: ICRP 60 and ICRP 103 occupational effective dose estimation algorithms of the recommendations for staff during different steps of \({}^{99m}\)Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy procedure. Figure 7: Comparison of actual occupational effective dose and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) algorithm. Results are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(n=30\)), and results marked with \({}^{*}\) indicate a statistically significant difference (\(p<0.05\)), [PERSON], et al, 2008 [33]. 4.5 Comparison of Dosimetry Algorithms for Estimating the Occupational Effective Dose for Staff During Different Steps of \({}^{99\text{m}}\)Tc-MDP Bone Scintigraphy: A Single vs. Double Dosimetry Evaluation  
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) advocates using double dosimetry, particularly when evaluating radiation exposure to the whole body and more sensitive regions, such as the eye's lens, or using a lead apron [42]. Double dosimetry involves using two dosimeters to monitor radiation exposure for staff working in environments where protective garments, such as lead aprons, are worn. One dosimeter is typically positioned outside the garment (on the collar) and the other beneath it (on the chest).