Marie Shermaine E. Alfafara,
Sharmaine May B. Cane,
Charmaine May J. Delda,
Ken Anthony C. Flores,
Niessie Jane A. Flores,
Christian Brylle J. Manatad,
Ma. Teresa D. Mata,
Shella Marie C. Oandasan,
Keissen Gem D. Talingting,
Justin James E. Yap,
Jared B. Dela Cruz
The main problem considered in this research study was to determine the frequency of radiographic film processing artifacts when using different water types as an alternative stop bath in the manual processing of films. Bautista et al. (2015) recommended the use of different water types as an alternative stop bath to the conventional acetic acid solution without specifying whether these water types would have an effect on the frequency of the said processing artifacts. Specifically, the researchers sought to determine the proportion of radiographic film processing artifacts between the experimental and control groups in terms of films with artifacts and no artifacts. Furthermore, the researchers would like to know whether there was a significant difference in the presence of radiographic film processing artifacts between the types of water and acetic acid. The experiment was conducted at the Medical Diagnostic Center (MDC) X-ray Laboratory within the College of Allied Medical Sciences of Cebu Doctors' University located at No. 1, Dr. P.V. Larrazabal Avenue, North Reclamation Area, Mandaue City, Cebu. This study used three (3) types of water namely: soft water, hard water and sea water. The films were randomly assigned to the said treatment groups in which 8 x 10 inch radiographic films totalling to six hundred thirty-six (636) were exposed and manually processed. One hundred fifty-nine (159) films were utilized for each of the said groups.
The researchers found out that in terms of the presence of radiographic film processing artifacts, soft water produced the least which amounted to nineteen (19), 15.97% of all the artifacts found. It was followed by hard water having twenty (20) films with a percentage of 16.81. Next was the acetic acid, considered to be the standard solution used as the stop bath in manual processing, garnering thirty-eight (38) films with a percentage of 31.93. Lastly, sea water produced forty-two (42) films with artifacts, 35.29%. On the contrary, the number of films without processing artifacts was: 140 (27.08%) for soft water, 139 (26.89%) for hard water, 121 (23.40%) for acetic acid and 117 (22.63%) for sea water. The frequency of processing artifacts using the different water types as an alternative stop bath were tested with the alpha level set to 0.05. The results demonstrated there was an overall significant difference among the treatment groups.
Based on the results of the study, soft water and hard water had the least frequency of radiographic film processing artifacts having twenty-one (21) each as compared to the forty-four (44) film processing artifacts found in sea water. Thirty-eight (38) film processing artifacts were found in acetic acid, the standard stop bath in manual processing. Even though the other water types used showed a presence of an artifact, they could be still used a a substitute because they could create films with no artifacts. Since the results clearly signified that soft water and hard water equally produced the least frequency of radiographic film processing artifacts and showed a large margin from the control, the researchers would recommend the further use of soft water and hard water as an alternative stop bath in manual processing.
1. Adejoh, T. , Onwuzu, S. W. I. , Nkubli, F. B. , Ikegwuonu, N. C. . "Film- screen radiographic artefacts: A paradigm shift in classification" Open Journal of Medical Imaging
4, 108-111, 2014. Retrieved from: http://doi:10.4236/ojmi.2014.43015
2. American Association, . (1976, November 30). Basic quality control in diagnostic radiology. (AAMP Report No. 4). . Retrieved from: aapm.org/pubs/reports/rpt_04. pdf
4. Bautista, B. M. S. , Bayale, C. A. M. , Dinorog, R. B. , Fuentes, M. S. , Rosalejos, V. A. , Sanson, J. M. L. . Effect of water types as an alternative stop bath on radiographic density in manual processing. Mandaue City. 2015. Cebu Doctors’ University,
5. Bushong, S. C. . Radiologic science for technologists: physics, biology and protection (9th ed.) Missouri : Mosby Elsevier, 2008.
17. Long, B. W. , Frank, E. D. , Ehrlich, R. A. . Radiography essentials: For limited practice (2nd ed.) Singapore: Elsevier, 2006.
18. McLemore, J. M. . Quality assurance in diagnostic radiology Chicago: Year Book Medical Publisher, 1981.
20. Mendoza, J. J. B. , Baton, E. P. , Borres, D. A. P. , Canaya, M. A. , Cuizon, M. D. P; , Dagdag, J. B. , Villanueva, R. M. . Radiographic film artifacts processed with soft water versus tap water in automatic processing.
. Mandaue City. 2007,
22. Muhogora, W. , Padovani, R. , Msaki, P. . "Initial quality performance results using a phantom to simulate chest computed radiography" Journal of Medical Physics
36 (1): 22-28, 2011. Retrieved from: http://doi = 10.4103/0971-6203- 75468
23. National Institute f, . Acetic acid: Immediately dangerous to life or health concentrations. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention 2014. . Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/64197.html
29. Papp, J. . Quality management in the imaging sciences (4th ed.) St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby, Esevier, 2011.
33. Scobbie, E. , Dabill, D. W. , Groves, J. A. . "Chemical pollutants in x-ray film processing departments" The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
40(4): 423-35, 1996. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nl m.nih.gov/pubmed/8806214