Radiation attenuation by lead and nonlead materials used in radiation shielding garments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attenuating properties of several types of lead (Pb)-based and non-Pb radiation shielding materials were studied and a correlation was made of radiation attenuation, materials properties, calculated spectra and ambient dose equivalent. Utilizing the well-characterized x-ray and gamma ray beams at the National Research Council of Canada, air kerma measurements were used to compare a variety of commercial and pre-commercial radiation shielding materials over mean energy ranges from 39 to 205 keV. The EGSnrc Monte Carlo user code cavity. cpp was extended to provide computed spectra for a variety of elements that have been used as a replacement for Pb in radiation shielding garments. Computed air kerma values were compared with experimental values and with the SRS-30 catalogue of diagnostic spectra available through the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine Report 78. In addition to garment materials, measurements also included pure Pb sheets, allowing direct comparisons to the common industry standards of 0.25 and 0.5 mm "lead equivalent." The parameter "lead equivalent" is misleading, since photon attenuation properties for all materials (including Pb) vary significantly over the energy spectrum, with the largest variations occurring in the diagnostic imaging range. Furthermore, air kerma measurements are typically made to determine attenuation properties without reference to the measures of biological damage such as ambient dose equivalent, which also vary significantly with air kerma over the diagnostic imaging energy range. A single material or combination cannot provide optimum shielding for all energy ranges. However, appropriate choice of materials for a particular energy range can offer significantly improved shielding per unit mass over traditional Pb-based materials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".