4.1 Article

A comparative Study Between Fluka and Microshield Modeling Calculations to study the Radiation-Shielding of Nanoparticles and Plastic Waste composites

期刊

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/zaac.202100062

关键词

FLUKA code; radiation shielding design; nanocomposite; TGA; XRD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comparative study was conducted on the radiation shielding properties of plastic waste mixed with nano copper oxide and phosphotungstic acid using FLUKA code and Microshield software programs. The new nanocomposite was found to be effective in shielding gamma radiation due to the presence of dense materials like nano copper oxide and phosphotungstic acid. The results indicated that the mass attenuation coefficients and effective atomic and electron densities of the samples increased with higher PTA content, while the half-value layer, tenth value layer, and mean free path decreased.
A comparative study has been conducted by using Monte Carlo FLUKA code and Microshieldsoftware programs to study the radiation shielding properties of plastic waste mixed with nano copper oxide (CuO) and phosphotungstic acid (PTA). The variousdiverse percentages of new nanocomposite have been prepared using the compression moulding technique, then they are characterized using Fourier transfer infrared spectrophotometer (FT-IR), thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA), X-ray diffraction (XRD). The new nanocomposite has been established as a effective shielding material towards gamma radiation due to the presence of dense materials, like nano copper oxide and phosphotungstic acid. The gamma radiation attenuation has been established by using the previously mentioned methods. The results have proved that the mass attenuation coefficients (mu(m)) and effective atomic (Z(eff)), and electron densities (N-el) of the samples increased with increasing the phosphotungstic acid (PTA) content while the half-value layer (HVL), the tenth value layer (TVL), and the mean free path (MFP) decreased as PTA increased.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据