Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Results in Physics
journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/rinp
Experimental investigation of photon attenuation behaviors for concretes
including natural perlite mineral
Osman Agar
a,⁎, Hüseyin O. Tekin
b, M.I. Sayyed
c, Mehmet E. Korkmaz
a, Ozgur Culfa
a,
Can Ertugay
daKaramanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Department of Physics, 70100 Karaman, Turkey
bUskudar University, Vocational School of Health Services, Radiotherapy Department, Istanbul 34672, Turkey cPhysics Department, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia
dAkdeniz University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, 07058 Antalya, Turkey
A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Radiation shielding Attenuation coefficient Gamma spectrometer Perlite A B S T R A C T
Perlite mineral contains relatively high water and in general hydrated obsidian forms the perlite which is mainly an amorphous volcanic glass. Photon attenuation properties for different concrete types including natural perlite mineral and B4C have been experimentally investigated by using different radioactive point sources at 81, 276, 303, 356, 384, 662, 1173, 1275 and 1333 keV. SEM and EDAX analyses were carried out to control the crystal structure of the selected concrete types. In this work, HPGe detector based on gamma spectrometer was em-ployed for all experiments. The results revealed that among the prepared concrete samples, the P6 concrete sample has the lowest HVL and MFP values and thus, having best ability to attenuate gamma rays in comparison to the other prepared concretes.
Introduction
Radiation shielding concretes, also known as heavyweight con-cretes, are the composite consist of several materials such as heavy weight aggregates, cement, water and higher than the density of con-cretes formed of normal aggregates [1,2]. Since perlite mineral has large amount of crystal water, it prevents the high energy radiation such as gamma rays and X-rays. Different types of radiation shielding concrete are easier to turn into complex forms, economical, non-toxic and suitable for ionization radiation compared with other shielding materials such as glass, Al as well as Pb. Therefore, these composites used in building construction, in particular, have become more im-portant with the development of nuclear technology and nuclear fa-cilities[3]. These shielding materials can be utilized in variousfields such as particle accelerators, laboratory hot cells, research reactors, radiotherapy rooms, a biological shield for nuclear power plants and other different radiation sources [1,4]. Furthermore, it is very im-portant to study the protection of ionizing radiation because the workers can exposure to radiations while they are in facilities with radioactive sources and radiation emitting instrument. Such buildings are important for human health as the part of their daily time is being spent in above-mentioned work areas[5].
As it is well-known, the linear and mass attenuation coefficients are
parameters introduced to evaluate the radiation shielding performance of any material. These most commonly used parameters give some in-formation on the possibility of photon interaction processes with matter per unit thickness[6]. Assessment of the accurate value of attenuation coefficient is very important and necessary in many applied radiation fields[7]. In the last few decades, there are number of experimental, theoretical and simulation studies have been applied on the radiation shielding characteristics of various materials such as concretes[8–11], granite samples[12–14], biological materials[15,16], alloys[17]and glasses[18–20].
Perlite mineral is an amorphous volcanic glass including 1– 5% of combined water, typically formed by the hydration of obsidian. The naturally occurring mineral belongs to the same family of volcanic glasses as pitchstone, obsidian, scoria and pumice [21]. It has such extraordinary property that expands significantly when adequate heating process is applied. It is a sustainable, versatile and industrial mineral that is mined and processed with a negligible impact on the environment as well as a commercial product useful for its density after processing. The chemical composition of Perlite are 70–75% Silicon Oxide (SiO2), 12–15% Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3), 3–4% Sodium oxide (Na2O), 3–5% Potassium Oxide (K2O), 0.5–2% Iron oxide (Fe2O3), 0.2–0.7% Magnesium oxide (MgO2), and 0.5–1.5% calcium oxide (CaO). There are used in many applications asfilter aid, ladle topping,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2018.11.053
Received 1 November 2018; Received in revised form 16 November 2018; Accepted 17 November 2018 ⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail address:osmanagar@kmu.edu.tr(O. Agar).
Available online 27 November 2018
2211-3797/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
Materials and methods
Experimental details
In the present investigation, Portland cement has been used in order to prepare the concrete samples. A variety of concrete samples on which photon shielding effectiveness was surveyed are prepared including different ratios of perlite mineral, boron carbide (B4C) and aggregate. Two different groups of concretes were prepared for the shielding tests in this work. Thefirst group of concrete (P) was made by mixing perlite mineral instead of the normal aggregate in fractions of 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40% and 50% by weight in concrete, which is labeled as P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 and P7, respectively. The second group (PB) was consisted of mixing perlite mineral and B4C additives instead of the normal aggregate in fractions of 10 + 1%, 10 + 3% and 10 + 5% by weight in concrete, which is labeled as PB1, PB2 and PB3, respectively. The coding, density and mixture proportion of concrete forms at dif-ferent rates is given in Table 1. All concretes are produced in cubic shapes with dimension of 5 × 5 × 5 cm.
To assess the photon attenuation properties of concrete samples doped with natural perlite mineral, the gamma ray spectrometer equipped with high purity germanium (HPGe) detector has been uti-lized. This detector resolution is 0.768 and 1.85 keV full width at half maximum (FWHM) at 1.22 and 1.332 MeV for57Co and60Co, respec-tively. The calibration of spectrometer in a wide range of 47 and 1836 keV energy is employed utilizing a mixed calibration source containing 11 radionuclides (57Co,60Co,85Sr,88Y,109Cd,113Sn,137Cs, 139
Ce,203Hg,210Pb and241Am) supplied by the TAEK (IAEA 1364-43-2) [23,24].
The five standard radioactive point sources with the different photon energies of 81, 276, 303, 356, 384, 662, 1173, 1275 and 1333 keV have been used in the linear attenuation coefficient mea-surements. The activities of sources are approximately 1μCi (37 kBq). Additionally, nuclear data of the radioisotopes can be taken in Ref. [25].
The schematic arrangement of the experimental setup is represented in Fig. 1. The absorber was placed between the detector and the radioactive point source. To establish the more precise results (1σ
where x is the thickness of the sample,I0andIrepresent the incident
and attenuated photon intensities recorded in detector, respectively. The standard deviation in calculations can be determined by the next equation[11,12]: = ∑ − − = − σ μ μ N ( ) 1 i N i 1 2 (2) where N is number of the counts per sample,μiandμ is the individual−
linear attenuation coefficient in each count and the average value of the linear attenuation coefficients, respectively.
To calculate the theoretical values of mass attenuation coefficient of a compound or mixture, we used the mixture rule given by the fol-lowing relation[28]:
∑
= = μ μ ρ w μi( /ρ)i m (3) wherewiis the weight fraction of the ithconstituent in the sample, andμ ρ
( / )iis the mass attenuation coefficient value of the ithconstituent in
the sample (cm2/g).
Furthermore, there are two terminologies generally used in radia-tion shielding effectiveness and dosimetry applicaradia-tions known as the half-value layer (HVL) and mean free path (MFP). The HVL (cm) is the required shielding absorber thickness where one half of the incident gamma rays were decreased. Moreover, the MFP (cm) is described as the mean distance between two successive interactions of gamma rays. These parameters are determined with the help of linear attenuation coefficient[29]: = HVL ln μ 2 (4) and = MFP μ 1 (5)
Results and discussions
Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX)
EDX (FEI Quanta FEG 450), one of practical, rapid and suitable analytical methods mostly carried out for multielement determination, was used for achieving qualitative information of elements in a vast variety of materials. In this work, nine different components oxygen (O), carbon (C), sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), silicon (Si), sulfur (S), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and iron (Fe) of the synthesized concretes were determined. A typical EDX spectrum containing the predominance of multielements for the concrete type (P5) as an example is shown in Fig. 3, where all peaks identified by elements are marked. Also,Table 2 lists the elemental concentrations (weight %) of all samples. The amounts of elements range between 47.66 (P10) and 52.54% (P8) for O, between 1.38 (P4) and 24.84% (P6) for Si, between 0 (P6) and 0.57% (P8) for S, between 0.16 (P4) and 3.61% (P6) for K, between Table 1
The codes, density and proportional changes of the synthesized concretes.
Coding w/c Aggregate perlite B4C ρ(g/cm3)
P1 0.5 90 10 – 2.14 P2 0.5 85 15 – 2.56 P3 0.5 80 20 – 2.33 P4 0.5 75 25 – 2.45 P5 0.5 70 30 – 2.40 P6 0.5 60 40 – 2.68 P7 0.5 50 50 – 2.12 PB1 0.5 89 10 1 2.53 PB2 0.5 87 10 3 2.34 PB3 0.5 85 10 5 2.19
7.06 (P6) and 40.87% (P5) for Ca, between 0 (P4, P5, P6, P8) and 1.36% (P10) for Fe, between 0 (P3,P7) and 1.38% (P6) for Na, between 0 (P6) and 0.91% (P8) for Mg and between 8.52 (P8) and 16.57% (P1) for C. In particular, vacancies caused by the concentration of O are undesirable in the radiation shielding calculations since the weight value of O among the components is directly related to the vacancies in the absorber.
Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
A typical microstructure of concrete types including the perlite mineral and B4C were monitored by SEM (FEI Quanta FEG 450) images to check out the dispersion and binding of thefilling materials within the synthesized concretes. SEM images of some synthesized concretes (P1, P3, P7 and PB3 samples) are given inFig. 4. It is clear that particle size distribution and good dispersion of the perlite mineral and B4C
within samples might have affected for the variation in the photon shielding characteristics as seen in images.
Radiation shielding effectiveness
The values of gamma ray attenuation coefficient specify valuable information on the gamma shielding performance of any absorber materials. All concrete types doped with natural perlite mineral and B4C have been experimentally measured in a wide energy range of 81–1333 keV in this work.Tables 3 and 4demonstrate the experimental values of linear (μ, cm−1) and mass attenuation (μm, cm
2/g) coeffi-cients obtained by measuring the intensities of photons passed through the absorbers respectively. According to these tables, theμ values are between 0.108(2) cm−1(for P4) and 0.535(15) cm−1(for P3) at 1275 and 81 keV, respectively. Furthermore, the μm has the lowest and
highest values of 0.043 cm2/g (for P2) and 0.230 cm2/g (for P3) at 1275 Fig. 1. Schematic picture of the experimental setup (revised from Ref.[12]).
Fig. 2. Gamma spectrum of the concrete sample (P6).
and 81 keV, respectively. It is clearly seen that the μmvalues are large
at lowest energy (i.e. 81 keV) and represent a downward trend with strong energy dependence. The main reason for this behavior is due to the dominance of different interaction mechanisms for photons at dif-ferent energies. Firstly, it can be attributed the dominance of photo-electric effect in the low incident photon energy range up to approxi-mately 384 keV. The cross section of photoelectric effect is strongly
dependent on the atomic number of the constituent elements forming sample (i.e. depends on Z4-5) while inversely proportional to the in-cident gamma energy as (∼1/E3
). At the intermediate energy region (600– few MeV), the mass attenuation coefficients have almost con-stant values owing to the dominance of Compton scattering which is linearly atomic number Z of the atom in the interacting absorber de-pendent. At higher-energy, pair production cross-section changes
P1 P3 P7 PB3
Fig. 4. SEM images of some prepared concrete samples (P1, P3, P7 and PB3).
Table 3
The linear attenuation coefficients of concretes at different energies. Sample μ(cm−1)
Ba Cs Co Na
81 keV 276 keV 303 keV 356 keV 384 keV 662 keV 1173 keV 1333 keV 1275 keV
P1 0.407 ± 0.003 0.227 ± 0.011 0.211 ± 0.005 0.200 ± 0.005 0.197 ± 0.006 0.154 ± 0.002 0.116 ± 0.003 0.110 ± 0.003 0.136 ± 0.002 P2 0.457 ± 0.004 0.227 ± 0.008 0.223 ± 0.003 0.208 ± 0.002 0.202 ± 0.005 0.161 ± 0.002 0.118 ± 0.005 0.119 ± 0.002 0.110 ± 0.002 P3 0.535 ± 0.015 0.278 ± 0.009 0.260 ± 0.003 0.248 ± 0.001 0.247 ± 0.004 0.191 ± 0.002 0.145 ± 0.002 0.141 ± 0.002 0.133 ± 0.002 P4 0.426 ± 0.003 0.221 ± 0.007 0.214 ± 0.005 0.202 ± 0.002 0.197 ± 0.006 0.155 ± 0.002 0.118 ± 0.001 0.115 ± 0.002 0.108 ± 0.002 P5 0.484 ± 0.003 0.252 ± 0.010 0.247 ± 0.003 0.232 ± 0.001 0.230 ± 0.007 0.175 ± 0.002 0.133 ± 0.002 0.128 ± 0.001 0.122 ± 0.001 P6 0.499 ± 0.002 0.264 ± 0.005 0.252 ± 0.003 0.239 ± 0.001 0.229 ± 0.005 0.184 ± 0.002 0.137 ± 0.002 0.129 ± 0.009 0.130 ± 0.009 P7 0.430 ± 0.002 0.234 ± 0.009 0.227 ± 0.001 0.213 ± 0.002 0.207 ± 0.005 0.164 ± 0.002 0.124 ± 0.002 0.122 ± 0.002 0.115 ± 0.002 PB1 0.436 ± 0.003 0.232 ± 0.006 0.227 ± 0.003 0.215 ± 0.003 0.211 ± 0.003 0.166 ± 0.001 0.124 ± 0.001 0.118 ± 0.002 0.115 ± 0.002 PB2 0.424 ± 0.004 0.234 ± 0.005 0.221 ± 0.002 0.210 ± 0.001 0.203 ± 0.003 0.163 ± 0.002 0.122 ± 0.001 0.120 ± 0.001 0.112 ± 0.001 PB3 0.413 ± 0.004 0.227 ± 0.005 0.219 ± 0.004 0.208 ± 0.001 0.200 ± 0.007 0.160 ± 0.001 0.119 ± 0.002 0.112 ± 0.001 0.111 ± 0.001 Table 4
The mass attenuation coefficients of concretes at different energies. Sample μm(cm2/g)
Ba Cs Co Na
81 keV 276 keV 303 keV 356 keV 384 keV 662 keV 1173 keV 1333 keV 1275 keV
P1 0.190 ± 0.004 0.106 ± 0.005 0.099 ± 0.003 0.094 ± 0.001 0.092 ± 0.003 0.072 ± 0.001 0.054 ± 0.001 0.052 ± 0.001 0.050 ± 0.001 P2 0.178 ± 0.001 0.089 ± 0.003 0.087 ± 0.001 0.081 ± 0.001 0.079 ± 0.001 0.063 ± 0.001 0.046 ± 0.001 0.046 ± 0.001 0.043 ± 0.001 P3 0.230 ± 0.006 0.119 ± 0.004 0.112 ± 0.001 0.106 ± 0.001 0.106 ± 0.002 0.082 ± 0.001 0.062 ± 0.001 0.062 ± 0.001 0.057 ± 0.001 P4 0.174 ± 0.001 0.090 ± 0.003 0.087 ± 0.002 0.083 ± 0.001 0.080 ± 0.002 0.063 ± 0.001 0.048 ± 0.001 0.047 ± 0.001 0.044 ± 0.001 P5 0.203 ± 0.001 0.106 ± 0.004 0.104 ± 0.001 0.097 ± 0.001 0.097 ± 0.002 0.073 ± 0.001 0.056 ± 0.001 0.054 ± 0.001 0.051 ± 0.001 P6 0.210 ± 0.001 0.111 ± 0.002 0.106 ± 0.001 0.100 ± 0.001 0.096 ± 0.003 0.077 ± 0.001 0.057 ± 0.001 0.054 ± 0.001 0.055 ± 0.001 P7 0.203 ± 0.001 0.111 ± 0.004 0.107 ± 0.001 0.101 ± 0.001 0.097 ± 0.002 0.077 ± 0.001 0.058 ± 0.001 0.058 ± 0.001 0.054 ± 0.001 PB1 0.193 ± 0.001 0.103 ± 0.003 0.100 ± 0.001 0.095 ± 0.001 0.094 ± 0.002 0.071 ± 0.001 0.055 ± 0.001 0.052 ± 0.001 0.051 ± 0.001 PB2 0.180 ± 0.002 0.100 ± 0.002 0.094 ± 0.001 0.090 ± 0.001 0.086 ± 0.001 0.069 ± 0.001 0.052 ± 0.001 0.051 ± 0.001 0.048 ± 0.001 PB3 0.189 ± 0.002 0.104 ± 0.002 0.100 ± 0.002 0.095 ± 0.001 0.091 ± 0.003 0.073 ± 0.001 0.054 ± 0.001 0.051 ± 0.001 0.051 ± 0.001
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 Ma ss a tt en u at io n co ef fi ci ent s ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) P1 y=0.1320+exp(-7.7580*x) R2=0.7930 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 Mass a ttenuat io n c oe fficients ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) P2 y=0.16955+exp(-0.0014*x) R2=0.76926 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 M as s a tt en u at io n co ef fi ci en ts ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) P3 y=0.13764+exp(-6.85165*x) R2=0.90945 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 Mass att en ua tion coefficients ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) P4 y=0.16634+exp(-0.00126*x) R2=0.81376 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 M ass atte nu ati on c oe ffic ie n ts (cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) P5 y=0.19051+exp(-0.0012*x) R2=0.80638 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 Mass att enuation co effici ent s ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) P6 y=0.2165+exp(-0.0017*x) R2=0.8061 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 Mass at ten uat ion coe ff icie nt s ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) P7 y=0.1866+exp(-0.0011*x) R2=0.79299 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 Mass att enuation co effici ent s ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) PB1 y=0.175+exp(-0.001*x) R2=0.77752 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 Mass at ten u at ion coe ff icie nt s ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) PB2 y=0.12894+exp(-8.284*x) R2=0.76285 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 Mas s a ttenuat ion co ef fi cient s ( cm 2 /g )
Photon Energy (keV) PB3
y=0.14621+exp(-9.03327*x) R2=0.78987
logarithmically with the photon energy. Therefore, probability of photon interaction via pair production increases exponentially with the increase in photon energy since thickness requirement decreases with the increase in energy for the absorption of photons in the target ma-terial.
The effect of possible interaction process between incident photon and matter is apparent inFig. 5which is variation of the µmvalues with photon energy for concretes consisting natural perlite mineral and B4C. µmvalues decrease exponentially with increasing photon energies as clearly seen in thefigure. The obtained results have been empirically fitted according to the following equation as a function of the photon energy:
= ×
f a. exp(b E) (6)
where a and b are the bestfit parameters and E is the photon energy. It is found that the µmvalues of the concretes are in agreement with the above formula and the R2correlation coefficients vary from 0.76285 (for P9) to 0.90945 (for P3).
The variation in half-value layer (HVL) and mean free path (MFP) of the selected concretes with photon energy is demonstrated inFig. 6. The tendency of the HVL and MFP results shown inFig. 6overlaps with the results obtained by Gaikwad et al.[30]. As known, HVL and MFP are indications of the radiation shielding performance, the lower HVL and MFP values of any sample the better radiation shielding perfor-mance because of lesser volume requirements of the concrete sample. The behavior for HVL and MFP is similar. The experimental results show that the HVL and MFP for all concretes increase with the energy. Consequently, photons with a high energy have more penetration within the concrete sample comparing to the photon with low energy which is in a full consistently with the physical behavior obtained from the mass attenuation coefficient results. It is to be noted that the HVL and MFP values of P6 with (ρ = 2.68 g/cm3) are the lowest while P1 concrete sample with (ρ = 2.14 g/cm3) possesses the highest HVL as well as MFP values. This indicates that the shielding efficiency of the concrete increases as the density increases. The P6 concrete sample has the best ability to attenuate gamma rays in comparison to the other prepared concretes.
Conclusions
The present work has been undertaken to determine appropriate experimental results of photon attenuation parameters for concretes doped with natural perlite mineral and B4C in a wide range of 81 and 1333 keV energy. Some useful conclusions are given as below:
•
The promising results represent the suitability of using concrete with added natural perlite mineral in the aggregate to shield gamma radiation. It can be considered for low-energy gamma radiation asshielding material. Moreover, perlite mineral with low cost and being quite light material solves the main problems such as trans-portation and storage when compared to other some materials.
•
The given SEM images represent the presence of particles of varyingmorphology in the types of developed, non-toxic perlite mineral in radiation shielding concretes.
•
The data of this research are expected to be useful in radiation shielding, dosimetry and various radiation applications.•
To get higher accuracy on the gamma shielding efficiency, a com-parative study on shielding parameters of the studied concretes will also be investigated using theoretical and computational data with help of the results of chemical analyses.Acknowledgement
This work was supported by Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University (Project Numbers: 13-M-17, 40-M-16).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online athttps:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2018.11.053.
References
[1] Han B, Zhang L, Ou J. Self-Shaping Concrete. Smart Multifunct Concr Toward Sustain Infrastruct 2017.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4349-9_5. [2] Oto B, Yildiz N, Akdemir F, Kavaz E. Investigation of gamma radiation shielding
properties of various ores. Prog Nucl Energy 2015.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pnucene.2015.07.016.
[3] Gur A, Artig B, Cakir T. Photon attenuation properties of concretes. Physicochem Probl Miner Process 2017.https://doi.org/10.5277/ppmp170115.
[4] Waly ESA, Bourham MA. Comparative study of different concrete composition as gamma-ray shielding materials. Ann Nucl Energy 2015.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. anucene.2015.05.011.
[5] Akkurt I, Akyildirim H. Radiation transmission of concrete including pumice for 662, 1173 and 1332 keV gamma rays. Nucl Eng Des 2012.https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.nucengdes.2012.07.008.
[6] Hubbell JH. Photon mass attenuation and energy-absorption coefficients. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 1982.https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-708X(82)90248-4.
[7] Singh VP, Shirmardi SP, Medhat ME, Badiger NM. Determination of mass at-tenuation coefficient for some polymers using Monte Carlo simulation. Vacuum 2015.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2015.06.006.
[8] Singh VP, Badiger NM. Investigation on radiation shielding parameters of ordinary, heavy and super heavy concretes. Nucl Technol Radiat Prot 2014.https://doi.org/
10.2298/NTRP1402149S.
[9] Akkurt I, Basyigit C, Kilincarslan S, Mavi B. The shielding ofγ-rays by concretes produced with barite. Prog Nucl Energy 2005.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene. 2004.09.015.
[10] Tekin HO, Singh VP, Manici T. Effects of micro-sized and nano-sized WO3on mass attenauation coefficients of concrete by using MCNPX code. Appl Radiat Isot 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2016.12.040.
[11] Agar O. Study on gamma ray shielding performance of concretes doped with natural sepiolite mineral. Radiochim Acta 2018.https://doi.org/10.1515/ract-2018-2981. [12] Eke C, Agar O, Segebade C, Boztosun I. Attenuation properties of radiation shielding
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Photon Energy (keV)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Photon Energy (keV) Fig. 6. Experimental HVL and MFP values of different concrete types.
materials such as granite and marble againstγ-ray energies between 80 and 1350 keV. Radiochim Acta 2017.https://doi.org/10.1515/ract-2016-2690.
[13] Tekin HO, Erguzel TT, Sayyed MI, Singh VP, Manici T, Altunsoy EE, et al. An in-vestigation on shielding properties of different granite samples using MCNPX code. Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 2018.
[14] Mavi B. Experimental investigation ofγ-ray attenuation coefficients for granites. Ann Nucl Energy 2012.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2012.01.009. [15] Singh K, Singh C, Singh GSM PS. Effect of weight fraction of different constituent
elements on the total mass attenuation coefficients of biological materials. Pramana J Phys 2002;59:151.
[16] Böke A. Linear attenuation coefficients of tissues from 1keV to 150keV. Radiat Phys Chem 2014;102:49–59.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2014.04.006. [17] Han I, Demir L. Determination of mass attenuation coefficients, effective atomic and
electron numbers for Cr, Fe and Ni alloys at different energies. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B 2009.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2008.10.004. [18] Sayyed MI, Lakshminarayana G. Structural, thermal, optical features and shielding
parameters investigations of optical glasses for gamma radiation shielding and defense applications. J Non Cryst Solids 2018;487:53–9.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jnoncrysol.2018.02.014.
[19] El-bashir BO, Sayyed MI, Zaid MHM, Matori KA. Comprehensive study on physical, elastic and shielding properties of ternary BaO-Bi2O3-P2O5glasses as a potent ra-diation shielding material. J Non Cryst Solids 2017.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jnoncrysol.2017.04.031.
[20] Ozan Tekin H, Sayyed MI, Manici T, Altunsoy EE. Photon shielding characteriza-tions of bismuth modified borate –silicate–tellurite glasses using MCNPX Monte Carlo code. Mater Chem Phys 2018.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2018. 02.009.
[21] Herskovitch D, Lin IJ. Upgrading of raw perlite by a dry magnetic technique. Magn
Electr Sep 1996.https://doi.org/10.1155/1996/58505.
[22] Samar M, Saxena Shweta P. Study of chemical and physical properties of perlite and its application in India. Int J Sci Technol Manag 2016;5:70–80.
[23] Agar O, Boztosun I, Segebade C. Multielemental analysis of some soils in Karaman by PAA using a cLINAC. Appl Radiat Isot 2017;122:57–62.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.apradiso.2017.01.011.
[24] Kavun Y, Boztosun I, Dapo H, Maraş I, Segebade C. Determination of the Sr/Ca ratio of tooth samples by photoactivation analysis in Southern Turkey. Radiochim Acta 2018.https://doi.org/10.1515/ract-2017-2918.
[25] NNDC. Interactive Chart of Nuclides. Natl Nucl Data Center, Brookhaven Natl Lab 2018. doi:10.1080/10641260701678116.
[26] Maestro. No Title. WwwOrtec-OnlineCom/Download/Maest 2018.
[27] Sayyed MI, AlZaatreh MY, Dong MG, Zaid MHM, Matori KA, Tekin HO. A com-prehensive study of the energy absorption and exposure buildup factors of different bricks for gamma-rays shielding. Results Phys 2017.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rinp.2017.07.028.
[28] Akman F, Durak R, Turhan MF, Kaçal MR. Studies on effective atomic numbers, electron densities from mass attenuation coefficients near the K edge in some sa-marium compounds. Appl Radiat Isot 2015.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso. 2015.04.001.
[29] Un A, Sahin Y. Determination of mass attenuation coefficients, effective atomic and electron numbers, mean free paths and kermas for PbO, barite and some boron ores. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B 2011.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2011. 04.011.
[30] Gaikwad DK, Sayyed MI, Obaid SS, Issa SAM, Pawar PP. Gamma ray shielding properties of TeO2-ZnF2-As2O3-Sm2O3glasses. J Alloys Compd 2018.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.06.240.
