4.6 Article

Feasibility of nanomaterial tungsten carbide as lead-free nanomaterial-based radiation shielding

Journal

RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 202, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2022.110492

Keywords

Nanofilm; Radiation shielding; Tungsten carbide; Lead-free material

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiation shielding material is crucial for protecting humans and the environment from radiation. Lead, although highly effective, has drawbacks such as toxicity and bulkiness, making the development of alternative materials like tungsten carbide nanofilm important.
Radiation shielding material is essential to protect humans and the environment from direct exposure to ionizing radiation. The ionizing radiation is best absorbed by high-density materials and heavy atoms like lead. The drawback of lead is that it is toxic, heavy, non-transparent, and bulky, which are often undesirable features for most applications. As a result, while the development of nanomaterials as radiation shielding materials is a promising field of study, a complete evaluation of the application of tungsten carbide nanofilm as a lead-free shielding material is still lacking in the literature. Tungsten carbide is an attractive material because it can be formed into a film using various fabrication processes suitable for a wide range of substrates. Moreover, tungsten carbide has a high atomic number, greater density, and better shielding characteristics compared to lead. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to provide recent advancements in the physical properties of tungsten carbide, the application of tungsten carbide nanofilm as radiation shielding material, and an overview of thin film deposition and deposition techniques that include the morphological structure of tungsten carbide nanofilm. The key challenges and future direction are also discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available