Biological polymeric shielding design for an X-ray laboratory using Monte Carlo codes

  • Suffian M. TajudinEmail author
  • F. Tabbakh


Photon irradiation facilities are often shielded using lead despite its toxicity and high cost. In this study, three Monte Carlo codes, EGS5, MCNPX, and Geant4, were utilized to investigate the efficiency of a relatively new polymeric base compound (CnH2n), as a radiation shielding material for photons with energies below 150 keV. The proposed compound with the densities of 6 and 8 g cm−3 were doped with the weight percentages of 8.0 and 15.0% gadolinium. The probabilities of photoelectric effect and Compton scattering were relatively equal at low photon energies, thus the shielding design was optimized using three Monte Carlo codes for the conformity of calculation results. Consequently, 8% Gd-doped polymer with thickness less than 2 cm and density of 6 g cm−3 was adequate for X-ray room shielding to attenuate more than 95% of the 150-keV incident photons. An average dose rate reduction of 88% can be achieved to ensure safety of the radiation area.


Polymeric compounds Monte Carlo codes Gadolinium 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies performed on human participants or animals.


  1. 1.
    McCaffrey JP, Mainegra-Hing E, Shen H. Optimizing non-Pb radiation shielding materials using bilayers. Med Phys. 2009;36:5586–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yue Kun, Luo Wenyun, Dong Xiaoqing, Wang Chuanshan, Guohua Wu, Jiang Mawei, Zha Yuanzi. A new lead-free radiation shielding material for radiotherapy. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2009;133:256–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soylu HM, Lambrecht FY, Ersöz OA. Gamma radiation shielding efficiency of a new lead-free composite material. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. 2015;305:529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scuderi GJ, et al. Evaluation of non-lead-based protective radiological material in spinal surgery. Spine J. 2006;6(5):577–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atxaga A, et al. Radiation shielding of composite space enclosures. In: Proceedings of 63rd international astronaustical congress, Italy, 2012, October. Naples: ORBi; 2012. pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhowmik S, Benedictus R. Performance of space durable polymeric nano composite under electromagnetic radiation at low earth orbit. In: IEEE applied electromagnetic conference; 2007. pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Odano N, Konnai A, Asami M. Development of high-performance gel-type radiation shielding material using polymer resin. Prog Nucl Sci Technol. 2014;4:639–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu H. Composite material for shielding mixed radiation. In: Advances in composite materials for medicine and nanotechnology. Shanghai: InTech; 2011. pp. 565–592. ISBN: 978-953-307-235-7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haruvy Y. Radiation durability and functional reliability of polymeric materials in space systems. Int J Radiat Appl Instrum Part C. 1990;35:204–12.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amato E, Lizio D. Plastic materials as a radiation shield for beta sources: a comparative study through Monte Carlo calculation. J Radiol Prot. 2009;29:239–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tabbakh F. MCNPX and GEANT4 simulation of gamma-ray polymeric shields. Pramana J Phys. 2016;86(4):939–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tabbakh F, Babaee V, Naghsh-Nezhad Z. Carbohydrate based materials for gamma radiation shielding. IOP J Phys Conf Ser. 2015;611:012015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hughes HG, et al. Monte Carlo N-particle code system for multi particle and high energy application. New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory; 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osei-Mensah W, Fletcher JJ, Danso KA. Assessment of radiation shielding properties of polyester steel composite using MCNP5. Int J Sci Technol. 2012;2(7):455–61.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharapov EI, et al. The upscattering of ultracold neutrons from the polymer [C6H12]n. Phys Rev C. 2013;88:064605-1–4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Enger SA, Rosenschold PM, Rezaei A, Lundqvist H. Monte Carlo calculation of thermal neutron capture in gadolinium: a comparison of GEANT4 and MCNP with measurements. Med Phys. 2006;33(2):337–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geant4 Collaboration. Geant4-a simulation toolkit. Nucl Instrum Methods A. 2003;506(3):250–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Allison J, et al. Geant4 developments and application. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53(1):270–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aguayo E, et al. Monte Carlo simulation tool installation and operation guide. Oak Ridge: U.S. Department of Energy; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hirayama H, et al. EGS5 code system, vol. 8. SLAC Report SLAC-R-730 & KEK Report 2005; 2010.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gerward L, et al. WinXCom-a program for calculating X-ray attenuation coefficients. Radiat Phys Chem. 2004;71:653–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Waters LS. MCNPX user's manual, version 2.4.0 (LA-CP-02-408); 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversiti Sultan Zainal AbidinKuala TerengganuMalaysia
  2. 2.Nuclear Science and Technology Research InstituteTehranIran

Personalised recommendations