4.5 Article

Radiation Shielding Properties of ZnO and Other Glass Modifier Oxides: BaO, MgO, Na2O, and TiO2, Using EpiXS Software

期刊

ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 1021-1029

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13369-022-07325-z

关键词

EpiXS; Glass modifiers; Photon attenuation; Radiation shielding; ZnO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the photon shielding characteristics of ZnO and other oxides as additives for anti-radiation glass systems. ZnO showed good shielding efficiency at various energy levels.
The study investigates the photon shielding characteristics of ZnO and other glass modifier oxides such as BaO, MgO, Na2O, and TiO2 as a viable additive for anti-radiation glass systems using the EPICS2017 library interpolated by EpiXS software. Their total cross sections and the linear attenuation coefficients are large at low energies but become smaller as photon energy increases. The computed mass attenuation coefficients of ZnO at gamma-ray energies of 356, 662, 1173, and 1332 keV are 0.1017, 0.0739, 0.0554, and 0.0519, respectively. The mean free path of ZnO is longer than that of BaO, but shorter than that of MgO, Na2O, and TiO2. The glass modifiers' half-value and tenth-value layers are in the sequence BaO < ZnO < TiO2 < MgO < Na2O. For energies of 60, 364, 662, and 1332 keV, the HVL values of ZnO, or the thickness required to reduce the intensity of the incident photon by half, are 0.083, 1.23, 1.67, and 2.38 cm, respectively. Depending on the penetration depth, the highest values for both energy absorption (EABF) and exposure buildup factors were observed in the 400-500 keV energy range. ZnO has the lowest EABF for X-ray energy and the second lowest for 101-120 keV gamma energy. The Z(eff) of the five oxides at X-ray energy is substantially higher than their Z(eff) at gamma energy. ZnO is only second to BaO in terms of radiation shielding efficiency, making it a better additive material for various anti-radiation glass systems.

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

4.5
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