HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cupp, S. L. Articles by Maidment, A. D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cupp, S. L. Articles by Maidment, A. D. A.

Ultraviolet Protectants: Causative Agents for Screen and Image Artifacts in Radiography¹

¹ From Thomas Jefferson University, 3390 Gibbon Building, 111 S 11th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Received April 10, 2002; revision requested June 17; revision received July 10; accepted August 16. Address correspondence to S.L.C. (e-mail: scott.cupp@mail.tju.edu).

View larger version (72K): [in a new window]   Figure 1. Radiograph obtained with a 10 x 12-inch book cassette that was removed from clinical use because of obvious artifacts (left). The artifacts in the upper right region resemble marks left by four fingers while holding the film. Note the magnified view (right) of the region that contains artifacts in the shape of fingers.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Figure 2. Radiographs of a lotion without UV protectants to which different UV filters were added to make a 4% solution by volume. Left: Image obtained with substances placed on the screen. Right: Image obtained after the screen had been cleaned of all visible traces of the substances. All of the UV filters caused artifacts of varying intensities, and the control sample did not produce an artifact. A, oxybenzone; B, octyl methoxycinnamate; C, octyl salicylate; D, padimate O; E, control sample.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Figure 3. Graph shows differences in optical density (OD) over time. Consistent amounts of UV protectants were applied to a YTaO4 intensifying screen and then cleaned off after varying lengths of time. The optical density difference was measured for each of the artifacts produced.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Figure 4. Spectroscopic image shows that the absorbance range of the UV filters does not substantially overlap the emission spectrum of Gd2O2S:Tb phosphor.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Figure 5. Spectroscopic image shows that the absorbance range of the UV filters overlaps considerably with the emission spectrum of YTaO4 phosphor.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Figure 6. Spectroscopic image shows that the absorbance range of the UV filters overlaps the tail of the YTaO4:Nb phosphor emission spectrum.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Figure 7. Spectroscopic image shows that the absorbance range of the UV filters overlaps the tail of the Ba(Sr)SO4:Eu phosphor emission spectrum.