www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Novel slag/natural rubber

composite as flexible material
for protecting workers
against radiation hazards
Ahmed M. El‑Khatib 1*, A. S. Doma 2, Mahmoud I. Abbas 1, Abd El‑Hady B. Kashyout 2,
Mohamed M. Zaki 3, Moamen Saleh 1 & Mahmoud T. Alabsy 1
This work is an attempt to employ the electric arc furnace (EAF) slag as a by-product material to
develop an alternative and environmentally friendly material for gamma-radiation protection
applications such as in medical and industrial areas. For this purpose, different concentrations of
micro-sized EAF slag (0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 500, and 800 phr) were incorporated as fillers in the
natural rubber (NR) matrix to produce the shielding composites. In addition, nano-sized EAF slag
particles were prepared by using a high-energy ball milling technique to investigate the effect of
particle size on the gamma-radiation shielding properties. The synthesized micro and nano EAF/
NR composites were tested as protective materials against gamma-radiation by employing NaI(Tl)
scintillation detector and standard radioactive point sources (152Eu, 137Cs, 133Ba, and 60Co). Different
shielding parameters such as linear and mass attenuation coefficient, half value layer (HVL), tenth
value layer, mean free path, effective atomic number ­(Zeff), and effective electron density ­(Neff) were
determined to assess the radiation shielding capability of the EAF/NR composites. Furthermore,
equivalent atomic number ­(Zeq) and the exposure buildup factor values for photon energy in the range
from 0.015 to 15 MeV were also computed by Geometric Progression method. The experimental
results of micro EAF/NR composites showed that at 121.78 keV, EAF0 composite (without EAF slag
content) had the lowest μ value of 0.1695 ­cm−1, while the EAF800 composite (which was loaded with
800 phr of micro EAF slag) had the highest μ value of 0.2939 ­cm−1 at the same energy, which in turn
decreases the HVL from 4.09 to 2.36 cm, respectively. Therefore, increasing the filler weight fractions
of EAF slag in the NR matrix, increases the shielding properties of the composites. Moreover, the NR
composite reinforced with 800 phr of nano EAF slag has better gamma-radiation shielding efficiency
compared to that filled with 800 phr of micro EAF slag. The success of this work was to prepare a
flexible, lightweight, low-cost, and lead-free material with better shielding capability.

The applications of ionizing radiation have spread in many fields of industry, agriculture, medicine, scientific
research, and others. Despite the multiple benefits of this radiation, they may cause severe damage to humans
and the environment if they are not handled with great care and in safe w ­ ays1. The risks of using ionizing radia-
tion in an unsafe manner may outweigh its benefits. Thus, shielding materials must be provided to attenuate
radiation and protect workers and other equipment from harmful radiation. In choosing a protective shielding
material, some characteristics must be available in the selected materials, such as high density and high atomic
number (Z), in addition to low cost and ­availability2. For this purpose, lead is the first option and the most used
material to protect from X-rays and γ-rays. But the usage of pure lead has some drawbacks, including toxicity,
heaviness, rigidity, and poor portability. These shortcomings have prompted scientists and researchers in the field
of radiation protection to find new alternative materials for radiation shielding. These alternative materials must
be highly efficient to protect against radiation and possess characteristics that can overcome the shortcomings
of lead, such as being lightweight, easily portable, and flexible.

1
Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21511, Egypt. 2Advanced Technology
and New Materials Research Institute (ATNMRI), City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications
(SRTA-City), New Borg Al‑Arab City, Alexandria 21934, Egypt. 3Al Ezz Dekheila Steel Company, Alexandria,
Egypt. *email: ahmed.elkhatib@alexu.edu.eg

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Polymer composites have been widely investigated as an alternative choice due to their unique properties
such as reasonable cost, ease of the process, light weight, flexibility, and good mechanical s­ trength3. Polymer
composites doped with fillers of metal or metal oxides of high atomic numbers such as W, Bi, Ba, Gd, and Sn have
attracted the attention of many scientists for future applications in radiation shielding. Furthermore, polymer
composites can not only be utilized as shielding materials against X-rays and gamma-rays when injected with
elements of high atomic number but can also be employed as neutron moderators due to their high content of
hydrogen ­atoms4.
Natural and synthetic rubbers are polymers with elastic properties often used in daily a­ pplications5. When
combined with conductive additives such as carbon black, carbon fiber, metal, or metal oxide, these rubber-
conductive composite materials have broad uses in electromagnetic interference s­ hielding6 and many other
electronic and electrical ­applications7. Adding fillers to rubber aims to improve some of its physical properties and
develop the rubber industry. The fillers injected into the rubber composites can be made of organic or inorganic
materials with different chemical structures, shapes, sizes, concentrations, and characteristics. Carbon black,
calcium carbonate, mica, aluminum hydroxide, silica, clay minerals, barites, a variety of oxides, montmorillonite,
and metals are some examples of ­fillers8. Good distribution of fillers in the rubber composites helps to achieve
optimum reinforcement.
Natural rubber (NR) composites have high flexibility, good compressibility, significant stretch ability and good
electrical ­conductivity9. The usage of rubber composites as radiation shielding materials has also been explored
by several researchers due to these benefits. El-Khatib et al.10 reported low-cost and effective composites based
on natural rubber and filled with lead as promising materials for fabricating protecting clothes against gamma-
radiation. In another research, different fillers, including ­BaCO3, ­Bi2O3 and B ­ aSO4, were compared as X-rays and
gamma-rays shielding fillers in NR-based composites. The results demonstrated that the NR/Bi2O3 composite
was the potential candidate to be used as a wearable and flexible radiation protective ­material11. The thermal
neutrons shielding performance of NR composites loaded with different amounts of boric acid ­(H3BO3) has
also been investigated and the total macroscopic cross-section of 0.29 ­cm−1 was reported at 30 phr of H ­ 3BO312.
Furthermore, recycled rubber was also investigated as radiation protection material with appropriate a­ dditives13.
As a theoretical study, the gamma radiation shielding features of ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM)
rubber composites filled with 200 phr of different metal oxides ­(Al2O3, CuO, CdO, ­Gd2O3, or B ­ i2O3) were reported
using Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation t­ oolkit14.
Recently, the application of nanomaterials in numerous branches of technology and science has gained the
attention of scientists. The use of nanoparticles as fillers in the polymer matrix is growing fast. Several studies
showed how adding nanoparticles as fillers to the polymeric matrix improved the shielding effectiveness of
polymer ­composites15. Fillers in nanoscale have outstanding physical and chemical properties compared to their
bulk counterparts and increase the ability of composites to attenuate r­ adiation16. This is because nano-sized fillers
can disperse more uniformly and with less agglomeration inside the polymer matrix compared to micro-sized
­fillers17–19. Plangpleng et al.20 demonstrated that the NR filled with B ­ aSO4 nanoparticles provided better gamma
radiation shielding than the ordinary-sized B ­ aSO4 due to the large surface to volume area of nanocomposites.
Electric arc furnace (EAF) slag is a by-product generated during the steel production process and contains
some chemicals, including recycled steel scrap, coke, lime, and some metal o­ xides21. Approximately one ton
of slag wastes is generated for three to four tons of stainless s­ teel22. The principal components of slag used and
studied to date include Ca-silicates, Ca-Al-ferrites, molten oxides of calcium, iron, magnesium, and ­manganese23.
Slags are used daily in a broad range of applications, including final landfill cover m ­ aterial24, Portland cement
25 26 27
­manufacturing , an agricultural f­ ertilizer , and mineral C ­ O2 ­sequestration . It has also been used in wastewater
­treatment28 and as an economical material for environmental r­ emediation29. Moreover, iron slag has also been
investigated as an aggregate replacement to enhance the γ-ray shielding properties of c­ oncrete30.
This work is an attempt to develop flexible, low-cost, and effective radiation protective composites based
on natural rubber as a polymer matrix and filled with micro-size EAF slag with a concentration of 0, 20, 40,
60, 80, 100, 500, and 800 phr (parts per hundred parts of rubber). The effect of nano-sized EAF slag on the
γ-ray shielding performance of NR composites at 800 phr is also examined. EAF slag nanoparticles is prepared
by ball milling and charachterized by transmission electron microscope (TEM). Moreover, the cross-section
morphologies of the synthesized NR composites were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
The linear and mass attenuation coefficients, the half-value layer, tenth-value layer, and mean free path of the
examined NR composites are experimentally determined at different gamma-ray energies ranging from 121.78
to 1408.01 keV by using NaI scintillation detector. Furthermore, essential shielding parameters, such as effec-
tive atomic number (­ Zeff ), electron density (­ Neff ), equivalent atomic number (­ Zeq) and the exposure buildup
factors (EBF) of the investigated NR composites are theoretically computed to assist the shielding capability of
the proposed NR composites.

Materials and methods

Materials. A commercial natural rubber (NR) supplied by the Transportation and Engineering Co., Egypt,
with SMR-20 grade and specific gravity of 0.934 g/cm3, was used as a polymer matrix in this study. Other chemi-
cals, including Sulphur, Zinc oxide, Stearic acid, and Paraffin oil, are utilized in a commercial-grade without
being purified and are locally delivered from ADWIC Co. Egypt. Moreover, N220 (ISAF) carbon black (CB) pur-
chased from Birla Carbon Egypt Co. was used in this work. EAF Slag supplied from EZZ Steel Co. Alexandria,
Egypt, is used as filler in the rubber matrix. Table 1 displays the elemental analysis of EAF Slag powder using
Energy Dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Element Mass %
C 2.53 ± 0.10
O 39.57 ± 0.43
Mg 1.39 ± 0.08
Al 1.59 ± 0.08
Si 5.47 ± 0.13
P 0.08 ± 0.03
S 0.07 ± 0.03
Cl 0.53 ± 0.04
K 0.07 ± 0.03
Ca 17.03 ± 0.22
Ti 0.20 ± 0.04
Mn 0.74 ± 0.08
Fe 30.73 ± 0.39

Table 1.  EDX analysis for EAF slag powder.

Synthesis of EAF slag nanoparticles (EAFS NPs). EAFS NPs prepared by high-energy ball milling
(Fritsch Pulverisette 7, Germany) with a speed of 600 rounds per minute (rpm). The ball mill contains two vials
of size 50 ml and an outer stainless steel body by inner grinding medium made of tungsten carbide. Tungsten
carbide balls of various sizes with a total mass of 90 g and a diameter between 2 and 10 mm were employed,
where the ball-to-powder weight ratio was set to be 5:1. Ethanol, a process control agent, was added during mill-
ing to prevent powder agglomeration.

Synthesis of rubber composites sheets. The preparation of different formulations of micro EAF/NR
and EAFS NPs/NR composites was carried out according to ASTM D 3185–99. All rubber ingredients were
combined using the two-roll mill of rolling temperature control with the following dimensions: 460 mm outside
diameter, 250 mm working distance, 16 rpm rolling speed, and a 1.4 gear ratio. After milling, the sample sheet
was collected from the mill, cut, and put into a steel mold of 0.5 cm in thickness, 25 cm in width, and 20 cm in
height and divided into four circles of 8.3 cm in diameter needed for the radiation protection test. The mold is
placed between two layers of steel to obtain smooth surface samples. Then the rubber composite was vulcanized
using a hot press at 143 ± 2 °C for 20 min with an applied pressure of 15 MPa. Table 2 displays the prepared EAF/
NR composites along with their ingredients.

Structural analysis. The transmission electron microscope (TEM) (JEM 1400 Plus, JEOL, Japan) operat-
ing at 200 kV was used to measure the particle size of EAFS NPs. Furthermore, the cross-section morphologies
of the synthesized NR composites were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (JSM-6010LV,
JEOL). The specimens were coated with an ultrathin gold coating before SEM examination using low-vacuum
sputtering coating equipment (JEOL-JFC-1100E). The SEM images were acquired at a voltage of 20 kV and
20,000× magnification.

Gamma‑ray acquisition setup. Gamma ray shielding properties of the investigated micro EAF/NR and
EAFS NPs/NR composites were performed by using 3′′ × 3′′ NaI scintillation detector (Canberra Model 802), and
has a resolution of 7.5% at the 662 keV. Four standard radioactive point sources, including 60Co, 133Ba, 137Cs, and
152
Eu, were employed to measure the shielding parameters of the selected composites at different energies. These

Samples
Ingredients (phr) EAF0 EAF20 EAF40 EAF60 EAF80 EAF100 EAF500 EAF800 Nano EAF800
Natural rubber (NR) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Carbon black (N220) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Zinc oxide 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Paraffinic oil 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6PPd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stearic acid 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
CBS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sulfur 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
EAF slag 0 20 40 60 80 100 500 800 800

Table 2.  EAF/NR composites ingredients.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

sources, along with their generated energies, emission probabilities, and half-life time are listed in Table 331. The
radioactive source was placed on a Plexiglas holder at a distance of 50.86 cm from the sample, which was placed
on the detector surface. This distance between the detector’s surface and the radioactive source was chosen for
several reasons, including obtaining a parallel beam, reducing the impact of dead time, and ignoring the effect
of coincidence ­summing32. According to the sample thickness, the gamma spectra for all measurements were
collected for enough time so that the statistical error in the net area under each peak was less than 1%. The Genie
2000 software was employed to analyze the obtained spectra, and the count rate was measured at a given energy
and thickness for each prepared NR composite and then tabulated on an excel sheet. The experimental setup for
the gamma-ray measurements is shown in Fig. 1.

Theoretical background. The experimental density ρ of each composite was measured at room tempera-
ture by employing Archimedes principle, according to ASTM D 792-912433, using a well-calibrated single pan
electrical balance (GR200, Japan) and an organic liquid of known density ρl. The measured density is calculated
using Eq. (1):
wa
ρ=
Wa − W l
× ρl (1)

where ­wa is the weight of the composite in air and w

­ l is the weight of composites in the organic liquid.
The lightweight and low density are the most advantages of polymer composite materials. The parameter
which describes this characteristic is called heaviness which was calculated relative to the lead by Eq. (2)34:

Radioactive source Photon energy (keV) Emission probability % Half life time (Days)

60
1173.23 99.90
Co 1925.31
1332.5 99.982
133
Ba 356.01 61.90 3847.91
137
Cs 661.66 85.21 11,004.98
121.78 28.40
244.69 7.49

152
344.28 26.60
Eu 4943.29
778.90 12.96
964.13 14.00
1408.01 20.87

Table 3.  Photon energies, emission probabilities per decay and half-life time for all radioactive s­ ources31.

Figure 1.  Experimental arrangement for gamma-ray measurement.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

denisty of the composite

Heaviness% = × 100 (2)
denisty of lead
When gamma-ray of appropriate energy passes through matter, it is subjected to attenuation due to the
photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production interactions. As a result of these interactions, the
intensity of the radiation is decreased exponentially as a function of the thickness of the absorbing material as
described by Eq. (3)35:
I = I0 e−µx (3)
where ­I0 and I are the incident and transmitted γ-ray intensities, respectively, x is the thickness of the absorb-
ing medium, and μ ­(cm−1) is called the linear attenuation coefficient. μ is one of the most significant shielding
parameters that depend on γ-ray energy and the absorber composition. The mass attenuation coefficient μm was
then determined by simply dividing the estimated μ of a given composite by its density ρ as shown by Eq. (4)15:
µ
µm =
ρ (4)

Other shielding parameters, such as half-value layer (HVL) and tenth-value layer (TVL), were calculated
using Eqs. (5, 6), are parameters represent the absorber thicknesses needed to reduce the incident γ-ray intensity
to 50% and 10% of its initial value, r­ espectively36:
Ln2
HVL = (5)
µ

Ln10
TVL = (6)
µ
When describing the shielding characteristics of compounds or composites in terms of pure elements, the
effective atomic number (­ Zeff ), a useful photon interaction parameter that depends on photon energy, is utilized.
Equation (7) is used to derive Z ­ eff values for the investigated EAF/NR ­composites37:

fi Ai (µm )i
Zeff = i Aj (7)
j fi Zj (µm )j

where ­fi, ­Ai, and ­Zi are the molar fraction, the atomic weight, and the atomic number of the ith constituent ele-
ment in the composite material.
The effective electron density ­(Neff ), expressed in electrons/g, is the quantity of electrons present in the com-
posite material per unit mass, and it is calculated using Eq. (8)38:
NA Zeff
Neff = (8)
�A�
where ­NA is the Avogadro’s number and �A� = i fi Ai is the average atomic mass of the composite material.

The exposure-buildup factor (EBF) must be taken into account in order to correct the attenuation calculations
caused by the accumulation of secondary photons as a result of Compton scattering in designing an effective
shielding material. The Geometric-Progression fitting method (GP) was used to calculate the EBF for the exam-
ined EAF/NR composites, and the calculations were carried out in accordance with the three steps listed below:

(1) First, the equivalent-atomic number (­ Zeq), an energy dependent parameter that describes the character-
istics of the selected EAF/NR composites in terms of their equivalent elements, was determined using the
­formula39:
   
Z1 logR2 − logR + Z2 logR − logR1
Zeq = (9)
logR2 − logR1
where ­R1 and ­R2 are the (μComp/μtotal) ratios corresponding to the elements with atomic numbers ­Z1 and ­Z2
respectively, and R is the (μComp/μtotal) ratio for the polymer selected at a specific energy, which lies between
ratios ­R1 and ­R2.
(2) The estimated Z ­ eq values of the EAF/NR composites were then used to interpolate GP fitting exposure
buildup factor coefficients (b, c, a, X
­ K, d) in the energy range 0.015–15 MeV using the interpolation formula
(10)40:
   
C1 logZ2 − logZeq + C2 logZeq − logZ1
C= (10)
logZ2 − logZ1
where ­C1 and ­C2 are GP fitting parameters, acquired from ANSI/ANS-6.4.3 standard ­database40, corre-
sponding to Z ­ 1 and ­Z2 between which ­Zeq of the selected composite lies.
(3) Finally, using the determined GP fitting parameters and the following equations, the EBF for the investi-
gated EAF/NR composites was d ­ erived41:

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

b−1 x
(11)

B(E, x) = 1 + K − 1 , K �= 1
K −1
and
B(E, x) = 1 + (b − 1)x, K = 1 (12)
where
tanh(x/XK − 2) − tanh(−2)
K(E, x) = cx a + d for x ≤ 40 mfp (13)
1 − tanh(−2)
where E is incident photon energy and x is the penetration depth in terms of mfp.

Results and discussion

Characterization. Transmission electron microscope (TEM). The TEM micrographs of micro EAF slag
and nano EAF slag are shown in Fig. 2a,b, respectively. From Fig. 2a, it is clear that micro EAF slag particles
have an irregular shape with varying particle sizes between 0.5 and 1 μm. On the other hand, Fig. 2b confirms
the presence of EAF slag in nano dimension scale after ball milling with grains of spherical shape with a size
distribution between 17 and 33 nm.

Scanning electron microscope (SEM). SEM was employed to examine the distribution of micro and nano EAF
slag particles in the NR matrix. The SEM morphologies of the micro EAF800 and nano EAF800 composites are
shown in Fig. 3a,b respectively. From Fig. 3a, it is obvious that micro EAF slag particles are not dispersed well
with the NR matrix and there are gaps between bulky particles, and some of them are peeled away from the
matrix providing voids for shielding. On the other hand, Fig. 3b reveals that nano EAF slag particles are homoge-
neously distributed and well embedded in the NR matrix which provides the interlocking structure for shielding.

Figure 2.  TEM images of (a) micro EAF slag and (b) nano EAF slag.

Figure 3.  SEM images of (a) micro EAF800/NR and (b) nano EAF800/NR composites.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Gamma‑ray shielding properties. Micro EAF/NR composites. The mass attenuation coefficients μm for
the micro EAF/NR composites were experimentally estimated at different photon energies ranging from 121.78
to 1408.01 keV. The theoretical values of μm were also obtained from XCOM ­software42. The discrepancy Δ%
between the experimental and theoretical values of μm was calculated by Eq. (14):
(µm )exp. − (µm )XCOM
�% = × 100 (14)
(µm )XCOM
Table 4 lists the measured densities and mass attenuation coefficients for EAF/NR composites along with the
theoretical μm values calculated from XCOM program and their relative deviations at different photon energies.
Table 4 shows that, at different photon energies, the experimentally measured values of μm of the micro EAF/NR
composites are fairly match to those predicted theoretically from XCOM software, where the discrepancy (Δ%)
in the measured values of μm was estimated to be from ± 0.09% to ± 2.88%, which confirms a valid calibration
of the experimental setup. It is evident from Table 4 that, μ values for all the proposed EAF/NR composites are
dependent on the incident gamma-ray energy and the concentration of the added EAF slag.
The linear attenuation coefficient μ is a basic shielding parameter that can be investigated to assist the effect
of adding different concentrations of EAF slag on the gamma-ray protective capability of the natural rubber
matrix. The experimental values of μ for the current micro EAF/NR composites as a function of photon energy
in the range between 121.78 and 1408.01 keV are plotted in Fig. 4. As can be seen from Fig. 4, loading the natu-
ral rubber with the EAF slag affects the shielding properties of the composites. It is clear from Fig. 4 that, the μ
values increase regularly with increasing the concentrations of EAF slag from 20 to 800 phr in the natural rubber
matrix and decrease sharply with increasing the incident photon energy. The increase in μ values with increasing
the EAF slag content may be referred to the capability of EAF slag to attenuate gamma rays particularly in the
low energy region. That is to say, μ increases by increasing the EAF content due to increase in the density of the
composites (as shown in Table 4), since μ is a density dependent factor. However, the decrease in μ values with
increasing the incident photon energy can be attributed to the three main gamma-ray interactions with matter:
the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production. The photoelectric effect is the dominant inter-
action at low photon energies, and its cross-section is inversely proportional to the photon energy ­E3.5; therefore,
as expected, μ will decrease rapidly with increasing the photon energy. Moreover, at moderate energies between
661.7 and 1408 keV, the decrease in μ values with increasing photon energy becomes slightly significant. This is
because, at these moderate photon energies, the Compton scattering becomes the dominant interaction with a
cross-section probability that varies with ­E−143.
HVL and TVL, frequently calculated shielding parameters, are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the shield-
ing materials. HVL and TVL represent the absorber thicknesses needed to reduce the incident γ-ray intensity to
50% and 10% of its initial value, respectively. The better shielding materials have low HVL and TVL values. The
variation of the HVL and TVL values of the selected micro EAF/NR composites as a function of photon energy
is depicted in Fig. 5a,b, respectively. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the HVL and TVL values of the micro EAF/NR
composites increase with increasing the gamma-ray energy while decreasing with increasing the content of the
EAF slag. According to Fig. 5a, EAF800/NR composite has the lowest HVL values ranging from 2.35 to 7.97 cm,
while EAF0/NR composite has the highest HVL values ranging from 4.09 to 11.08 cm. This suggests that the
increase in the content of EAF slag reduces the HVL and TVL values leading to an improvement in the shielding
effectiveness of the NR composites.
The effective atomic number ­Zeff and the effective electron density ­Neff for the EAF/NR composites were com-
puted theoretically in the energy range between 0.015 and 15 MeV and depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
­Zeff and ­Neff were evaluated using μm values obtained from the XCOM database for each constituent element in
the composite sample as described by Eqs. (7) and (8). It is evident from Figs. 6 and 7 that Z ­ eff and ­Neff depend
on the incident photon energy. Figure 6 verifies that in the energy range between 0.015 and 0.2 MeV, Z ­ eff for all
the EAF/NR composites decreases quickly with the increase in the photon energy since the photoelectric effect is
the predominant interaction in this energy range which varies inversely with ­E3.5. Further increase in the photon
energy between 0.3 and 3 MeV, the Z ­ eff values are approximately constant for each composite due to the Compton
scattering cross-section in this energy range. Due to the predominance of the pair production in the high energy
region between 3 and 15 MeV, a slight increase in the Z ­ eff is noticed by increasing the energy of gamma-rays. It
is also clear from Fig. 6 that ­Zeff values increase apparently with increasing the concentrations of EAF slag from
20 to 800 phr in the natural rubber matrix at the same photon energy. The highest ­Zeff is obtained for EAF800/
NR composite and ranges from 21.97 to 10.44. In contrast, the lowest Z ­ eff is obtained for EAF0/NR and ranges
from 13.14 to 3.80. Figure 7 shows N ­ eff is also a function in the incident gamma-ray energy. The dependence of
­Neff on the incident photon energy can be discussed as in the ­Zeff section. The highest ­Neff is obtained for EAF800/
NR composite and ranges from 21.97 to 10.44. In contrast, the lowest Z ­ eff is obtained for EAF0/NR composite
and ranges from 13.14 to 3.80.
The interactions of gamma radiation at given energy with a material depend on the atomic number of the
interacting medium. For this purpose, it is important to calculate the composite’s equivalent atomic number ­(Zeq),
which is synonymous with the elemental atomic number. The composite material with the higher equivalent
atomic number is the best protective material. Figure 8 depicts the variation of ­Zeq values for the micro EAF/
NR composites versus gamma-ray energy. From Fig. 8, it is apparent that insertion of EAF slag in increasing
amounts into the NR matrix causes the ­Zeq to increase at the same gamma-ray energy. The highest ­Zeq was found
for the EAF800/NR composite, while the lowest Z ­ eq was for the EAF0/NR composite. Moreover, it is also obvi-
ous that the Z ­ eq increases gradually to reach its maximum value for all the EAF/NR composites at 1 MeV due
to the Compton scattering process. Then, it falls rapidly as the γ-ray energy exceeds 1 MeV owing to the pair

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Mass attenuation coefficient ­(cm2 ­g−1)

Sample Density Energy (keV) Experimental Theoretical (XCOM) Δ% (%)
121.78 0.1589 0.1579 0.63
244.69 0.1248 0.1248 0.00
344.28 0.1118 0.1100 1.64
356.01 0.1098 0.1086 1.10
661.66 0.0851 0.0839 1.43
EAF0 1.066 ± 0.004
778.9 0.0784 0.0779 0.64
964.13 0.0704 0.0704 0.00
1173.23 0.0652 0.0639 2.03
1332.5 0.0600 0.0599 0.17
1408.01 0.0586 0.0582 0.69
121.78 0.1620 0.1604 1.00
244.69 0.1215 0.1238 − 1.86
344.28 0.1106 0.1089 1.56
356.01 0.1071 0.1074 − 0.28
661.66 0.0822 0.0829 − 0.84
EAF20 1.130 ± 0.007
778.9 0.0765 0.0770 − 0.65
964.13 0.0692 0.0696 − 0.57
1173.23 0.0628 0.0632 − 0.63
1332.5 0.0586 0.0592 − 1.01
1408.01 0.0581 0.0575 1.04
121.78 0.1576 0.1624 − 2.96
244.69 0.1249 0.1229 1.63
344.28 0.1066 0.1079 − 1.20
356.01 0.1057 0.1065 − 0.75
661.66 0.0805 0.0822 − 2.07
EAF40 1.172 ± 0.008
778.9 0.0741 0.0763 − 2.88
964.13 0.0683 0.0689 − 0.87
1173.23 0.0617 0.0626 − 1.44
1332.5 0.0594 0.0586 1.37
1408.01 0.0576 0.0570 1.05
121.78 0.1658 0.1640 1.10
244.69 0.1234 0.1223 0.90
344.28 0.1084 0.1072 1.12
356.01 0.1068 0.1058 0.95
661.66 0.0816 0.0815 0.12
EAF60 1.208 ± 0.005
778.9 0.0759 0.0757 0.26
964.13 0.0681 0.0684 − 0.44
1173.23 0.0627 0.0621 0.97
1332.5 0.0572 0.0582 − 1.72
1408.01 0.0572 0.0566 1.06
121.78 0.1614 0.1653 − 2.36
244.69 0.1214 0.1218 − 0.33
344.28 0.1049 0.1066 − 1.59
356.01 0.1036 0.1052 − 1.52
661.66 0.0809 0.0810 − 0.12
EAF80 1.259 ± 0.004
778.9 0.0747 0.0752 − 0.66
964.13 0.0674 0.0680 − 0.88
1173.23 0.0620 0.0617 0.49
1332.5 0.0581 0.0578 0.52
1408.01 0.0554 0.0562 − 1.42
Continued

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Mass attenuation coefficient ­(cm2 ­g−1)

Sample Density Energy (keV) Experimental Theoretical (XCOM) Δ% (%)
121.78 0.1675 0.1664 0.66
244.69 0.1210 0.1213 − 0.25
344.28 0.1061 0.1061 0.00
356.01 0.1040 0.1047 − 0.67
661.66 0.0815 0.0806 1.12
EAF100 1.277 ± 0.006
778.9 0.0751 0.0748 0.40
964.13 0.0658 0.0676 − 2.66
1173.23 0.0624 0.0614 1.63
1332.5 0.0585 0.0575 1.74
1408.01 0.0559 0.0559 0.00
121.78 0.1733 0.1744 − 0.63
244.69 0.1180 0.1181 − 0.08
344.28 0.1016 0.1024 − 0.78
356.01 0.1007 0.1010 − 0.30
661.66 0.0782 0.0775 0.90
EAF500 1.564 ± 0.008
778.9 0.0728 0.0719 1.25
964.13 0.0656 0.0650 0.92
1173.23 0.0585 0.0590 − 0.85
1332.5 0.0557 0.0553 0.72
1408.01 0.0538 0.0538 0.00
121.78 0.1768 0.1765 0.17
244.69 0.1165 0.1172 − 0.60
344.28 0.0993 0.1014 − 2.07
356.01 0.0975 0.1000 − 2.50
661.66 0.0769 0.0767 0.26
EAF800 1.662 ± 0.009
778.9 0.0709 0.0712 − 0.42
964.13 0.0646 0.0643 0.47
1173.23 0.0571 0.0583 − 2.06
1332.5 0.0532 0.0547 − 2.74
1408.01 0.0523 0.0532 − 1.69

Table 4.  Measured values of density and mass attenuation coefficients for EAF/NR composites versus
theoretical values calculated from XCOM program and their relative deviations at different photon energies.

0.32

EAF0
0.28 EAF20
EAF40
Linear attenuation coefficient (cm )
-1

EAF60
0.24
EAF80
EAF100
0.20 EAF500
EAF800
0.16

0.12

0.08

0.04
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Photon Energy (keV)

Figure 4.  Linear attenuation coefficients of micro EAF/NR composites with different EAF slag concentrations
as a function of photon energy.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

12 40
(a) (b)
35
10

30

8
25

TVL (cm)
HVL (cm)

6 20

EAF0 EAF0
15
EAF20 EAF20
4
EAF40 EAF40
EAF60 10 EAF60
EAF80 EAF80
2 EAF100 EAF100
5
EAF500 EAF500
EAF800 EAF800
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Photon Energy (keV) Photon Energy (keV)

Figure 5.  (a) HVL and (b) TVL of micro EAF/NR composites with different EAF slag concentrations as a
function of photon energy.

EAF0
EAF20
EAF40
EAF60
Effevtive atomic number (Zeff)

EAF80
EAF100
EAF500
EAF800
1
10

-2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Photon Energy (MeV)

Figure 6.  Variations of the effective atomic number for the micro EAF/NR composites with photon energy.

production process. Therefore, EAF800/NR composite has better shielding ability than other NR composites,
which is consistent with the former results of linear attenuation coefficients.
When selecting and developing an efficient protective material, the EBF must be taken into account to exam-
ine the effects of multiple gamma-ray scattering. Figure 9a–d depicts the variation of the EBF versus photon
energy between 0.015 and 15 MeV for the micro EAF/NR composites at penetration depths 1, 10, 20, and 40 mfp.
It is clear from Fig. 9 that the EBF values for all the EAF/NR composites are much higher at moderate gamma-ray
energies between 0.08 and 0.5 MeV, where the Compton scattering process generates secondary photons and
these photons are not totally removed. Still, they are prone to multiple scattering leading to a remarkable rise
in the EBF values. On the other hand, at low and high gamma-ray energies, the EBF values are much smaller
compared to moderate energies. This trend is due to the dominance of the photoelectric effect and pair produc-
tion mechanisms, respectively, in which the photons are entirely absorbed or severely depleted their energies in
low and high-energy regions. It is also clear from Fig. 9 that by increasing the content of the EAF slag in the NR

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

1
2x10
EAF0
EAF20
EAF40
EAF60

Electron Density (Neff 10 e/g)

EAF80

23
1
10 EAF100
EAF500
EAF800

-2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Photon Energy (MeV)

Figure 7.  Variations of the effective electron density for the micro EAF/NR composites with photon energy.

1
5x10

4x10
1 EAF0
EAF20
1 EAF40
3x10
EAF60
Equivalent atomic number (Zeq)

EAF80
1
EAF100
2x10 EAF500
EAF800

1
10

-2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Photon Energy (MeV)

Figure 8.  Variations of the equivalent atomic number for the micro EAF/NR composites with photon energy.

matrix, the EBF values decrease, especially at low and moderate energies, and their maximums shift to larger
energies. However, as the energy exceeded 1 MeV, increasing the concentration of EAF slag did not significantly
affect the EBF values at the same penetration depth. Moreover, it is also revealed from Fig. 9a–d that the EBF
values of the EAF/NR composites increase by increasing the penetration depths from 1 to 40 mfp. This can be
attributed to the generation of multiple photons due to increased interactions of photons at large penetration
depths.

Nano EAF/NR composite. The effect of nano-sized EAF slag on the γ-ray shielding performance of the NR
matrix is also examined. The μ values as versus photon energy for nano EAF800 composite are compared to
micro EAF800 composite as depicted in Fig. 10. The nano EAF800 composite (ρ = 1.) shows higher μ values than
micro EAF800 at the same photon energy, indicating particle size’s impact on enhancing the shielding capability.
The NR composite reinforced with 800 phr of nano EAF slag has better gamma-radiation shielding efficiency
than that filled with 800 phr of micro EAF slag, which agrees with the findings published in the ­literature44,45.
That is attributed to the homogenous dispersion of nano EAF slag particles within the NR matrix, as confirmed
by the SEM micrographs, which increases the interaction probability between the incident photons and the
nanoparticles.
The relative increase rate δ% in mass and linear attenuation coefficients between nano EAF800 and micro
EAF800 are calculated by Eq. (15) and represented in Fig. 11.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

0
5x10
(a) 1 mfp EAF0 (b) 10 mfp EAF0
0 2
4x10 EAF20 10 EAF20
EAF40 EAF40
EAF60 EAF60

Exposure buildup factor (EBF)

Exposure buildup factor (EBF)

0
3x10 EAF80 EAF80
EAF100 EAF100
EAF500 EAF500
EAF800 EAF800
0
2x10 10
1

0
10 0
10
-2 -1 0 1 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Photon Energy (MeV) Photon Energy (MeV)

3
10
(c) 20 mfp (d) 40 mfp
EAF0 EAF0
EAF20 EAF20
EAF40 3 EAF40
10
EAF60 EAF60
Exposure buildup factor (EBF)

Exposure buildup factor (EBF)

2 EAF80 EAF80
10
EAF100 EAF100
EAF500 EAF500
2
EAF800 10 EAF800

1
10
1
10

0 0
10 10
-2 -1 0 1 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Photon Energy (MeV) Photon Energy (MeV)

Figure 9.  Variations of the exposure buildup factor with gamma ray energy for the micro EAF/NR composites
at (a) 1 mfp, (b) 10 mfp, (c) 20 mfp, and (d) 40 mfp.

0.5
nano EAF800
micro EAF800
Linear attenuation coefficient (cm )

0.4
-1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Photon Energy (keV)

Figure 10.  Comparison between linear attenuation coefficients of micro EAF800 and nano EAF800 composites
as a function of photon energy.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

60
Linear attenuation coefficient
Mass attenuation coefficient
50

Relative increase rate (%)

40

30

20

10

eV eV eV eV V eV eV V eV
8k 9k 1k 6k ke 3k 3k ke 1k
.7 .6 .0 .6 8.9 .1 .2 2.5 .0
12
1
24
4
35
6
66
1 77 96
4 73 13
3 08
11 14
Photon Energy (keV)

Figure 11.  Relative increase rate in mass and linear attenuation coefficients between nano EAF800 and micro
EAF800 versus photon energy.

µnano − µmicro
δ% =
µmicro
× 100 (15)

It is evident from Fig. 11 that the relative increase rate δ% decreases with increasing the photon energy, and
the size effect becomes weak with the increase of photon energy. This trend is due to the dominance of Compton
scattering cross section at higher energies which does not depend on Z of the constituent elements of the EAF slag
filler. Therefore, the functional role of the EAF slag particle declines, and the impact of particle size diminishes
compared to that at lower energies where the photoelectric effect dominates, and the absorption ability depends
on the atomic number Z of the EAF slag particles. As a result, these nanoparticles play an important role in
shielding radiation at low energies. In conclusion, nano EAF800 composite is a promising material for radiation
protection applications spatially at low photon energies because it is an environmental (lead-free) material with
low cost and lightweight compared with lead composites.
In order to assess the gamma-ray shielding ability of the composites introduced in this study, the mass attenu-
ation coefficient of nano EAF800 composite is compared to other composites reported in literature (40 wt% nano
ZnO/HDPE44, 40 wt% nano CdO/HDPE15, 100 phr PbO/WR/NR10, 40 wt% micro PbO/rPVC45, CS-m Bi2O3
30%46) at 661.66 keV as depicted in Fig. 12. As can be seen from Fig. 12, nano EAF800 composite shows a com-
peting shielding ability with these previously published composites. Therefore, nano EAF-filled NR composite
is a promising shielding material against gamma radiation.

Conclusion
The current study aimed to prepare flexible, lightweight, and low-cost composites based on NR and filled with
different concentrations of micro and nano EAF slag to be employed as comfortable clothing and gloves designed
for workers in radiation facilities. From the obtained results, it can be concluded that the experimental values
of μm for micro EAF/NR composites match well with those determined theoretically from the XCOM database.
The measured values of the linear attenuation coefficients demonstrated their reliance on both the incident
photon energy and the concentration of EAF slag. The increase in the content of the EAF slag increases the μ
values and reduces the HVL and TVL values leading to an improvement in the shielding effectiveness of the NR
composites. In addition, increasing the content of the EAF slag, decreases the EBF values, especially at low and
moderate energies. The results also revealed that the particle size of the EAF slag plays a significant role in the
shielding capability of the composite. The NR composite reinforced with 800 phr of nano EAF slag has better
gamma-radiation shielding efficiency compared to that filled with 800 phr of micro EAF slag. That is attributed
to the uniform dispersion of nano EAF slag particles within the NR matrix which increases the interaction prob-
ability between the incident photons and the nanoparticles. Thus, nano EAF800/NR composite is a promising
alternative lead-free material for γ-ray shielding applications such as in medical and industrial areas.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 13

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

0.14

0.12 0.117

Mass attenuation coefficient (cm g )

2 -1
0.099 0.101
0.10 0.093 0.094 0.096

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
E E 0
DP DP /N
R 0% VC 80
/H /H bO O 33 O/rP EAF
O O P 2
Zn Cd hr Bi Pb no
no no 0p -m cro na
na na 10 CS mi
% % %
wt wt wt
40 40 40

Radiation shielding materials

Figure 12.  Reported mass attenuation coefficients of some composites in literature at 661.66 keV.

Data availability
All data that support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Received: 19 June 2023; Accepted: 17 August 2023

References
1. Martin, A., Harbison, S., Beach, K. & Cole, P. An Introduction to Radiation Protection (CRC Press, 2018).
2. Alharshan, G. A. et al. A comparative study between nano-cadmium oxide and lead oxide reinforced in high density polyethylene
as gamma rays shielding composites. Nucl. Technol. Radiat. Prot. 35, 42–49 (2020).
3. More, C. V., Alsayed, Z., Badawi, M. S., Thabet, A. A. & Pawar, P. P. Polymeric composite materials for radiation shielding: A review.
Environ. Chem. Lett. 19, 2057–2090 (2021).
4. El-Khatib, A. M. et al. Fast and thermal neutrons attenuation through micro-sized and nano-sized CdO reinforced HDPE com-
posites. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 180, 109245 (2021).
5. Ansari, A. H., Jakarni, F. M., Muniandy, R., Hassim, S. & Elahi, Z. Natural rubber as a renewable and sustainable bio-modifier for
pavement applications: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 289, 125727 (2021).
6. Jia, L.-C., Li, Y.-K. & Yan, D.-X. Flexible and efficient electromagnetic interference shielding materials from ground tire rubber.
Carbon N. Y. 121, 267–273 (2017).
7. Busfield, J. J. C., Thomas, A. G. & Yamaguchi, K. Electrical and mechanical behavior of filled rubber. III. Dynamic loading and the
rate of recovery. J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys. 43, 1649–1661 (2005).
8. Ain, Z. N. & Azura, A. R. Effect of different types of filler and filler loadings on the properties of carboxylated acrylonitrile–buta-
diene rubber latex films. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 119, 2815–2823 (2011).
9. Doma, A. S., El-Khatib, A. M., Abu-Rayan, A. E., Wazeer, W. & Abbas, M. I. A study on some physical properties of conductive
Pb/NR composites. J. Rubber Res. 24, 807–817 (2021).
10. El-Khatib, A. M. et al. Conductive natural and waste rubbers composites-loaded with lead powder as environmental flexible gamma
radiation shielding material. Mater. Res. Express 7, 105309 (2020).
11. Kalkornsurapranee, E. et al. Wearable and flexible radiation shielding natural rubber composites: Effect of different radiation
shielding fillers. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 179, 109261 (2021).
12. Gwaily, S. E., Hassan, H. H., Badawy, M. M. & Madani, M. Natural rubber composites as thermal neutron radiation shields: II—
H3BO3/NR composites. Polym. Test. 21, 513–517 (2002).
13. Parlar, Z., Abdlhamed, A. & Akkurt, I. Gamma-ray-shielding properties of composite materials made of recycled sport footwear.
Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16, 5113–5116 (2019).
14. Alabsy, M. T. & Elzaher, M. A. Radiation shielding performance of metal oxides/EPDM rubber composites using Geant4 simula-
tion and computational study. Sci. Rep. 13, 7744 (2023).
15. El-Khatib, A. M. et al. Gamma attenuation coefficients of nano cadmium oxide/high density polyethylene composites. Sci. Rep. 9,
16012 (2019).
16. Li, R. et al. Effect of particle size on gamma radiation shielding property of gadolinium oxide dispersed epoxy resin matrix com-
posite. Mater. Res. Express 4, 35035 (2017).
17. Botelho, M. Z. et al. X-ray transmission through nanostructured and microstructured CuO materials. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 69, 527–530
(2011).
18. Abbas, Y. M., El-Khatib, A. M., Badawi, M. S., Alabsy, M. T. & Hagag, O. M. Gamma attenuation through nano lead-nano copper
PVC composites. Nucl. Technol. Radiat. Prot. 1, 50–59 (2021).
19. El-Khatib, A. M. et al. Effect of PbO-nanoparticles on dimethyl polysiloxane for use in radiation shielding applications. Sci. Rep.
12, 15722 (2022).

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 14

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

20. Plangpleng, N. et al. Flexible gamma ray shielding based on natural Rubber/BaSO4 nanocomposites. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 199,
110311 (2022).
21. Hekal, E. E., Abo-El-Enein, S. A., El-Korashy, S. A., Megahed, G. M. & El-Sayed, T. M. Hydration characteristics of portland
cement–electric arc furnace slag blends. HBRC J. 9, 118–124 (2013).
22. Huaiwei, Z. & Xin, H. An overview for the utilization of wastes from stainless steel industries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 745–754
(2011).
23. Wang, L. K., Shammas, N. K. & Hung, Y.-T. Waste Treatment in the Metal Manufacturing, Forming, Coating, and Finishing Industries
(CRC Press, 2016).
24. Proctor, D. M. et al. Physical and chemical characteristics of blast furnace, basic oxygen furnace, and electric arc furnace steel
industry slags. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 1576–1582 (2000).
25. Tsakiridis, P. E., Papadimitriou, G. D., Tsivilis, S. & Koroneos, C. Utilization of steel slag for Portland cement clinker production.
J. Hazard. Mater. 152, 805–811 (2008).
26. Xian, W. & Qing-Sheng, C. A. I. Steel slag as an iron fertilizer for corn growth and soil improvement in a pot experiment. Pedosphere
16, 519–524 (2006).
27. Huijgen, W. J. J., Witkamp, G.-J. & Comans, R. N. J. Mineral ­CO2 sequestration by steel slag carbonation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39,
9676–9682 (2005).
28. Hosseini, S., Soltani, S. M., Fennell, P. S., Choong, T. S. Y. & Aroua, M. K. Production and applications of electric-arc-furnace slag
as solid waste in environmental technologies: A review. Environ. Technol. Rev. 5, 1–11 (2016).
29. Nehrenheim, E., Waara, S. & Westholm, L. J. Metal retention on pine bark and blast furnace slag–On-site experiment for treatment
of low strength landfill leachate. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 998–1005 (2008).
30. Ibrahim, A. M., Mohamed, A. R., El-Khatib, A. M., Alabsy, M. T. & Elsalamawy, M. Effect of hematite and iron slag as aggregate
replacement on thermal, mechanical, and gamma-radiation shielding properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 310, 125225
(2021).
31. Gouda, M. M., Badawi, M. S., El-Khatib, A. M., Hussien, N. S. & Abbas, M. I. Calculation of NaI (Tl) detector full-energy peak
efficiency using the efficiency transfer method for small radioactive cylindrical sources. Nucl. Technol. Radiat. Prot. 31, 150–158
(2016).
32. El-Khatib, A. M. et al. Full-Energy peak efficiency of an NaI (Tl) detector with coincidence summing correction showing the effect
of the source-to-detector distance. Chin. J. Phys. 55, 478–489 (2017).
33. ASTM. Standard Methods for Density and Specific Gravity (Relative Density) of Plastics by Displacement (D 792-91) (1997).
34. Harish, V., Nagaiah, N., Prabhu, T. N. & Varughese, K. T. Preparation and characterization of lead monoxide filled unsaturated
polyester based polymer composites for gamma radiation shielding applications. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 112, 1503–1508 (2009).
35. Knoll, G. F. Radiation detection and measurement. Nükl. Tıp Semin. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4274/​nts.​018 (2017).
36. Alabsy, M. T. et al. Gamma-ray attenuation and exposure buildup factor of novel polymers in shielding using geant4 simulation.
Materials (Basel) 14, 5051 (2021).
37. Kaçal, M. R., Akman, F. & Sayyed, M. I. Evaluation of gamma-ray and neutron attenuation properties of some polymers. Nucl.
Eng. Technol. 51, 818–824 (2019).
38. Manohara, S. R., Hanagodimath, S. M., Thind, K. S. & Gerward, L. On the effective atomic number and electron density: A
comprehensive set of formulas for all types of materials and energies above 1 keV. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam
Interact. Mater. Atoms 266, 3906–3912 (2008).
39. Sharaf, J. M. & Saleh, H. Gamma-ray energy buildup factor calculations and shielding effects of some Jordanian building structures.
Radiat. Phys. Chem. 110, 87–95 (2015).
40. ANSI/ANS-6.4.3. Gamma-Ray Attenuation Coefficients and Buildup Factors for Engineering Materials (American Nuclear Society,
1991).
41. Harima, Y., Sakamoto, Y., Tanaka, S. & Kawai, M. Validity of the geometric-progression formula in approximating gamma-ray
buildup factors. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 94, 24–35 (1986).
42. Berger, M. J. et al. XCOM: Photon cross sections database, 2010. https://​physi​cs.​nist.​gov/​PhysR​efData/​Xcom/​html/​xcom1.​html
(2010).
43. Biswas, R., Sahadath, H., Mollah, A. S. & Huq, M. F. Calculation of gamma-ray attenuation parameters for locally developed
shielding material: Polyboron. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 9, 26–34 (2016).
44. Alsayed, Z., Badawi, M. S., Awad, R., Elkhatib, A. & Thabet, A. Investigation of γ-ray attenuation coefficients, effective atomic
number and electron density for ZnO/HDPE composite. Phys. Scr. 95(8), 085301 (2020).
45. El-Khatib, A. M., Abbas, Y. M., Badawi, M. S., Hagag, O. M. & Alabsy, M. T. Gamma radiation shielding properties of recycled
polyvinyl chloride composites reinforced with micro/nano-structured PbO and CuO particles. Phys. Scr. 96, 125316 (2021).
46. Gouda, M. M., El-Khatib, A. M., Abbas, M. I., Al-Balawi, S. M. & Alabsy, M. T. Gamma attenuation features of white cement
mortars reinforced by micro/nano B ­ i2O3 Particles. Materials (Basel). 16, 1580 (2023).

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Al Ezz Dekheila Steel Company, Alexandria, Egypt, for their support
to conduct this research.

Author contributions
A.M.E. and M.T. Alabsy wrote the main manuscript text. M.S. performed the experimental measurements.
Mahmoud I. Abbas depicted all the figures. A.S.D., M.M.Z., and A.E.B.K. contributed to preparing the used
composite materials. All authors reviewed and revised the manuscript.

Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in coopera-
tion with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to A.M.E.-K.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 15

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2023

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:13694 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40846-7 16

Vol:.(1234567890)