Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Running head: MILLIAMPERAGE AND DENSITYS CORRELATION

Milliamperage (mA) and Densitys Correlation


Courtney Nance and Morgan Abbot
Instructor: Sherry Floerchinger
Radiographic Imaging I
Dixie State University
October 16, 2013

MILLIAMPERAGE AND DENSITYS CORRELATION

Milliamperage (mA) and Densitys Correlation


Introduction
The lab experiment will show the effect of mA on density with all other factors remaining
the same using digital equipment. The experiment was hypothesized that with increased mA,
darkness would increase. Changes in mAs control IR exposure in digital systems and setting the
correct mAs is critical for proper exposure (Carlton & Adler, 2013, p. 388).
Materials
Skull Phantom
Positioning Aids, sponges
4 10x12 Regius RC-110 Imaging Plates
#1-4 lead markers
Anatomical markers
Energized X-Ray Unit: GE Proteus X-Ray System
Reader: Konica Model 190
Flashdrive
PACS: Computer and Monitor
Safety Precautions
All individuals involved wore a dosimeter to measure the amount of radiation received.
The x-ray room was cleared with all participants standing behind a radiation protectant wall with
the door closed before making an exposure. The lab experiment used a skull phantom, therefore
no lead shielding was provided.
Procedure
All the above listed materials were retrieved to begin the lab. The first 10x12 cassette was
placed landscape on the x-ray table with a phantom skull in a left lateral position on the cassette.

MILLIAMPERAGE AND DENSITYS CORRELATION

Sponges were used to help position the phantom skull in a true lateral (the nose and head tilted so
it is parallel to the cassette.
The CR (central ray) was placed about 2 inches superior to the EAM (external auditory
meatus). Collimation was used to include the entire skull being okay if facial bones were not
present. The number one marker and left anatomical marker were placed in an area not
overlapping anatomy on the cassette.
These technical factors were set on the GE Proteus X-Ray console consistently for all 4
images: 40 inches SID, 65 kVp, .160 seconds, AEC switched off and set to table top. Then each
image was set with a varied mA. Image #1 used 12.5 mA. The IR (image receptor) was exposed
with the x-ray unit after all factors were set correctly. The resultant mAs was recorded for each
image. Next, the IR was placed in the Konica Reader to display the image making sure to record
the exposure index.
The process was repeated using 3 different mA quantities (switching the lead number
markers) recording the mAs and exposure index for each image. The following mA quantities
were used: Image #2- 50 mA, Image #3- 100 mA, and Image #4- 200 mA. After all 4 images
were processed they were sent to PACS on a separate computer to be saved to a flash drive.
Results

Image #1
Image #2
Image #3
Image #4

mA
12.4
49.8
99.9
200.6

Time (ms)
160.2
160
160
160

mAs
2
7.98
16
32.1

Exposure Index
590
152
76
38

kVp
65
65
65
65

SID
40
40
40
40

Formula: mA x Time (seconds) = mAs


Analysis
Konica Readers perfect exposure index is 150 with a range of 100-200. Below 100 is
over penetration of an object and above 200 is under penetration of an object. Image #1s

MILLIAMPERAGE AND DENSITYS CORRELATION

exposure index indicates under penetration, Image #2 showing the optimal exposure, and Image
#3-4 demonstrating over penetration. The brightness slightly lowers from Image #1 through
Image #4.
Although each image displayed a different exposure index, digital systems have the
ability of rescaling making the brightness of each image nearly the same unlike film. This is an
advantage for providing consistently exposed images and a disadvantage by possibly not using
proper technique for ALARA, (as low as reasonably achievable) patient dose. The physical bases
for these changes are because of mA techniques. The images showed little changes in brightness
and darkening as mAs were increased, but was affected by Quantum Mottle in Image #1. This is
caused by insufficient number of incoming x-ray photons reaching the image receptor (Carlton &
Adler, 2013, p. 429). Quantum Mottle affecting Image #1 with and exposure index of 590,
displays a grainy look and decreased detail.
The lab procedure could benefit from having a space on the lab paper to record the
differences between each image while viewing them at PACS. The monitors have better
resolution and can better differentiate the images.
Conclusion
Exposure index values measure the exposure to the IR and indirectly monitor patient
dose. It is important to be aware of these values to make necessary adjustments. Time and mA
changes can increase or decrease mAs, which effects the exposure index. Optimal exposure is
desired with the highest kV and lowest mAs possible, without obtaining Quantum Mottle. Using
this standard will help achieve the lowest patient dose. The data collected did not prove the
hypothesis that increasing mA will darken the image and decrease brightness. Only slight
changes in image darkness were seen as mA increased. This is due to the computers ability of
rescaling to provide consistent images. Instead, the data confirmed that having too little mA will

MILLIAMPERAGE AND DENSITYS CORRELATION


under penetrate your image and create Quantum Mottle displaying a grainy look. It is important
to remember the optimal exposure techniques to achieve the lowest patient dose.

MILLIAMPERAGE AND DENSITYS CORRELATION


References
Carlton, R. R., & Adler, A. M. (2013). Principles of Radiographic Imaging 5E. Clifton Park:
Delmar/Cengage Learning.