The skin dose of pelvic radiographs since 1896

Insights into Imaging

Table 7 Some exposure parameters from the period 1900–1910 and the corresponding ESAK^a

Author	Year	Inter-	V_prim^b,c	I_prim^b,c	kVp	I_{av_sec}	t_expo	FSD	KfiA at 1 m	ESAK
Author	Year	rupter^b,d	V	A	kV	mA	s	cm	μGy/mAs	mGy
Beck [64]	1904	W	115	1.5	72	0.52	210	23	320	374
Thurston-Holland [65]	1904	Hg	24	8	45	2.4	120	29	316	370
Biddle [66]	1905				72	15	10	30	253	296
Albers-Schönberg [67]	1906	W	70	9	81	1.68	162	40	243	352
Janus [39]	1909				104	5.1	40	39	309	353
Arthur^e [68]	1909	Hg	50	8	84	3.0	240	25	247	2374^e
,,	1909	W	80	15	84	3.1	80	25	247	807
Béclère [69]	1910				110	7	20	29	337	477
Jaugeas [70]	1910				109	15	17.5	29	325	863
,,	1910				110	25	6	29	330	501
,, ^f	1910				74	10	5	29	213	108
Tousey [71]	1910	W	110	16.5	90	4.4	45	35	266	366
,,	1910				90	9	45	35	266	753

^aWall thickness 0.85 mm glass. Inductor and ion tubes only
^bOnly relevant before 1910 when information on primary circuits was needed (and available)
^cV_prim = DC-voltage primary circuit, I_prim = average primary current
^dInterrupter: W=Wehnelt electrolytic break, Hg = mercury break
^eExceptionally high ESAK. All input taken from pag 101 in [68]. Their Fig. 14 on page 25 shows a correct configuration for voltage and current measurement, and the dose should generally not cause burns. But note also the uncertainty in our estimates
^fJaugeas: This low value is for “new Lumière plates and Gehler Folie screens”