Mass Attenuation Coefficients and Effective Atomic Numbers of Strontium Borate Glass System in the Energy Range 0.01- 1.25 MeV

Abstract:

Understanding the characterization of photon interaction is vital in nuclear science and technology field. The information obtained from mass attenuation coefficients (μ / ρ) and effective atomic numbers Z_eff are compared with the reference value for good interpretation of radiation interaction with matter. However, the methods of Z_eff calculation sometimes are confusing. In the present work, the total mass attenuation coefficients (μ / ρ) _T for photon interaction of Dy₂O₃ doped strontium borate glasses have been calculated using database tabulated by Hubbell and Seltzer, at the energies of 0.6 MeV and 1.25 MeV. For the calculation of the Z_eff, the power law, cross section and Auto-Z_eff are selected for comparison purpose in the energy range of 0.01 – 1.25 MeV. The relationship between the (μ / ρ) _T and Z_eff clearly shows the increase in the value with the increase of Dy₂O₃ concentration. These variations are due to the major dominance of photoelectric effect and minor interaction of incoherent scattering. It is found that the calculation of Z_eff between cross section and power law method is comparable at photon energy less than 0.1 MeV. As photon energy exceeds 0.1 MeV, the cross section method and the Auto- Z_eff software are more preferred compared to the power law approach. It is recommended to use different approach of Z_eff calculation at the specific energy of interest.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 895)
• Pages: 315-318
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.895.315
• Online since: February 2014
• Authors: Tou Ying Lim, Husin Wagiran, Rosli Hussin, Suhairul Hashim
• Keywords: Borate Glass, Effective Atomic Numbers, Mass Attenuation Coefficients

References

[1] A. Khanna, S.S. Bhatti, K.J. Singh and K.S. Thind: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B. Vol. 114 (1996), p.217 – 220.

[2] R.S. Kaundal, S. Kaur, N. Singh and K.J. Singh: J. Phys. Chem. Solids Vol. 71 (2010), p.1191 – 1195.

[3] J.H. Hubbell and S.M. Seltzer, NISTIR 5632 (1995).

[4] http: /physics. nist. gov/PhysRefData/Xcom/html/xcom1. html.

[5] L. Gerward, N. Guilbert, K.B. Jensen and H. Levring: Radiat. Phys. Chem. Vol. 60 (2001), pp.23-24.

[6] L. Gerward, N. Guilbert, K.B. Jensen and H. Levring: Radiat. Phys. Chem. Vol. 71 (2004), pp.653-654.

[7] W. Mayneord: Acta – Unio Int. Contra Cancrum Vol. 2 (1937), pp.271-282.

[8] M.L. Taylor, R.D. Franich, J.V. Trapp and P.N. Johnston: Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. Vol. 31 (2008), p.131 – 138.

[9] S.R. Manohara and S. M. Hanagodimath: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B. Vol. 258 (2007), p.321 – 328.

[10] M.L. Taylor, R.L. Smith, F. Dossing and R.D. Franich: Med. Phys. Vol. 39 (2012), pp.1769-1778.

[11] G.J. Hine: Phys. Rev. Vol. 85 (1952), p.725.

[12] D.F. Jackson and D.J. Hawkes: Phys. Rep. Vol. 70 (1981), pp.169-233.

[13] J. Kaewkhao and P. Limsuwan: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A. Vol. 619 (2010), p.295 – 297.

[14] A.R. El-Sersy, A. Hussein, H.M. El-Samman, N.E. Khaled, A. El-Adawy and H. Donya: J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Vol. 288 (2011), p.65 – 69.

DOI: 10.1007/s10967-010-0924-7