Experimental Study on Thickness-Dependent X-ray Radiation Protection of a Flexible and Lightweight Silicone Rubber–PbO Composite Apron
Downloads
The use of X-rays in medical imaging provides substantial diagnostic benefits but also poses risks associated with ionizing radiation exposure. Conventional lead-based protective aprons are effective but have major limitations, including excessive weight, rigidity, and potential toxicity. This study addresses a specific research gap by systematically evaluating the relationship between material thickness, radiation attenuation effectiveness, and the Half-Value Layer (HVL) of silicone rubber-based aprons filled with lead(II) oxide (PbO) at clinically relevant low-to-medium X-ray energies. An experimental method was employed by fabricating silicone–PbO composite apron prototypes with three thickness variations (2.5 mm, 3.0 mm, and 3.5 mm). Radiation attenuation tests were conducted at X-ray tube voltages of 60, 65, and 70 kV by measuring radiation intensity before and after transmission through the samples using a radiation detector, followed by calculating protection effectiveness and HVL values. The results demonstrate that apron thickness significantly influences radiation protection performance, with the highest attenuation of 85.11% achieved at a thickness of 3.5 mm. A moderate-to-strong positive correlation between thickness and protection effectiveness is observed at all voltage levels, with the highest coefficient of determination (R² = 0.916) at 65 kV. HVL values increase with thickness, indicating the need for thicker materials to achieve a 50% reduction in radiation intensity at higher attenuation levels. These findings highlight the novelty of quantitatively correlating thickness, attenuation effectiveness, and HVL within a single experimental framework and demonstrate that silicone rubber–PbO composite aprons have strong potential as a lightweight and flexible alternative to conventional lead aprons for clinical radiation protection at low-to-medium diagnostic X-ray energies.
[1] Y. H. Johary et al., “Evaluation occupationally radiation exposure during diagnostic imaging examinations,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 193, p. 110648, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2023.110648.
[2] S. M. E. Allam, M. M. A. Algany, and Y. I. A. Khider, “Radiation safety compliance awareness among healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation,” BMC Nurs., vol. 23, no. 1, p. 208, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-01858-4.
[3] C. M. Hayre, H. Bungay, and C. Jeffery, “How effective are lead-rubber aprons in protecting radiosensitive organs from secondary ionizing radiation?,” Radiography, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. e264–e269, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.03.013.
[4] E. Bercovich and M. C. Javitt, “Medical Imaging: From Roentgen to the Digital Revolution, and Beyond,” Rambam Maimonides Med. J., vol. 9, no. 4, p. e0034, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.5041/RMMJ.10355.
[5] A. Lierová et al., “BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW-DOSE RADIATION FROM CT IMAGING,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 198, no. 9–11, pp. 514–520, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncac091.
[6] E. Bercovich and M. C. Javitt, “Medical Imaging: From Roentgen to the Digital Revolution, and Beyond,” Rambam Maimonides Med. J., vol. 9, no. 4, p. e0034, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.5041/RMMJ.10355.
[7] R. Etzel, A. M. König, B. Keil, M. Fiebich, and A. H. Mahnken, “Effectiveness of a new radiation protection system in the interventional radiology setting,” Eur. J. Radiol., vol. 106, pp. 56–61, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.07.006.
[8] A. Omojola, M. Akpochafor, S. Adeneye, and U. Aniekop, “Radiographic assessment of protective aprons and dose simulation to personnel,” J. Radiat. Cancer Res., vol. 10, no. 2, p. 117, 2019, doi: 10.4103/jrcr.jrcr_14_19.
[9] M. C. Şahin, N. Ünay Çubukçu, and E. Oner, “The Disadvantages of Lead Aprons and the Need for Innovative Protective Clothing: A Survey Study on Healthcare Workers’ Opinions and Experiences,” Usak Univ. J. Eng. Sci., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 106–116, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.47137/uujes.1501906.
[10] R. S. Livingstone, A. Varghese, and S. N. Keshava, “A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology,” J. Clin. Imaging Sci., vol. 8, p. 34, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_34_18.
[11] A. M. König, J. Verbe Zoum, M. Fiebich, P.-W. Abissi, and A. H. Mahnken, “Comparison of the radiation protection effect of different radiation protection aprons made of different materials,” Eur. J. Radiol., vol. 164, p. 110862, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110862.
[12] H. Al-Ghamdi et al., “Impact of WO3-Nanoparticles on Silicone Rubber for Radiation Protection Efficiency,” Materials, vol. 15, no. 16, p. 5706, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.3390/ma15165706.
[13] M. I. Sayyed, H. Al-Ghamdi, A. H. Almuqrin, S. Yasmin, and M. Elsafi, “A Study on the Gamma Radiation Protection Effectiveness of Nano/Micro-MgO-Reinforced Novel Silicon Rubber for Medical Applications,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 14, p. 2867, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/polym14142867.
[14] S. Jayakumar, T. Saravanan, and J. Philip, “A review on polymer nanocomposites as lead-free materials for diagnostic X-ray shielding: Recent advances, challenges and future perspectives,” Hybrid Adv., vol. 4, p. 100100, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.hybadv.2023.100100.
[15] C. V. More, Z. Alsayed, M. S. Badawi, A. A. Thabet, and P. P. Pawar, “Polymeric composite materials for radiation shielding: a review,” Environ. Chem. Lett., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2057–2090, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10311-021-01189-9.
[16] A. M. El-Khatib, M. I. Abbas, S. I. Hammoury, M. M. Gouda, K. Zard, and Mohamed. Elsafi, “Effect of PbO-nanoparticles on dimethyl polysiloxane for use in radiation shielding applications,” Sci. Rep., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 15722, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-20103-z.
[17] S. Rahimi, O. Jahanbakhsh, and I. Ahadzadeh, “Effects of Pb2O3 nanoparticles on thermal and mechanical properties of epoxy resin, silicone, and PVC-based nanoshields,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, vol. 169, p. 105083, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2024.105083.
[18] L. Gilys, E. Griškonis, P. Griškevičius, and D. Adlienė, “Lead Free Multilayered Polymer Composites for Radiation Shielding,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 1696, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/polym14091696.
[19] N. Moonkum, C. Pilapong, K. Daowtak, and G. Tochaikul, “Evaluation of silicone rubber shielding material composites enriched with BaSO4 and Bi2 O3 particles for radiation shielding properties,” Mater. Res. Innov., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 296–303, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1080/14328917.2022.2141953.
[20] W. Abdullah, R. M. Ramli, T. H. Khazaalah, N. Z. N. Azman, T. M. Nawafleh, and F. Salem, “Enhancing X-ray radiation protection with novel liquid silicone rubber composites: A promising alternative to lead aprons,” Nucl. Eng. Technol., vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 3608–3615, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.net.2024.04.012.
[21] A. Fisli et al., “Some Metal Oxide-Natural Rubber Composites for Gamma- and Low-Energy X-Ray Radiation Shielding,” At. Indones., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 45–52, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.55981/aij.2023.1213.
[22] R. Y. Mohammed et al., “Impact of Growth Temperature of Lead-Oxide Nanostructures on the Attenuation of Gamma Radiation,” ACS Omega, vol. 8, no. 24, pp. 22230–22237, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c02910.
[23] S. N. Yılmaz, İ. K. Akbay, and T. Özdemir, “A metal-ceramic-rubber composite for hybrid gamma and neutron radiation shielding,” Radiat. Phys. Chem., vol. 180, p. 109316, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2020.109316.
[24] A. Hashim, A. Hadi, and Department of Ceramics and Building Materials, College of Materials, University of Babylon, Iraq (Iraq), “Novel Lead Oxide Polymer Nanocomposites for Nuclear Radiation Shielding Applications,” Ukr. J. Phys., vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 978–983, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.15407/ujpe62.11.0978.
[25] P.-J. P. Lin and A. R. Goode, “Accuracy of HVL measurements utilizing solid state detectors for radiography and fluoroscopy X-ray systems,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 339–344, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1002/acm2.13389.
[26] M. I. Sayyed, A. H. Almuqrin, S. M. Al-Balawi, Ali. Hedaya, and M. Elsafi, “Efficiency of flexible shielding materials against gamma rays: Silicon rubber with different sizes of Bi2 O3 and SnO,” E-Polym., vol. 25, no. 1, p. 20250031, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1515/epoly-2025-0031.
[27] B. Divband, Z. Haleem Al-qaim, F. H. Hussein, D. Khezerloo, and N. Gharehaghaji, “Comparison of X-Ray Attenuation Performance, Antimicrobial Properties, and Cytotoxicity of Silicone-Based Matrices Containing Bi2O3, PbO, or Bi2O3/PbO Nanoparticles,” J. Biomed. Phys. Eng., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 533–546, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2403-1736.
[28] A. M. Onaizi et al., “Radiation-shielding concrete: A review of materials, performance, and the impact of radiation on concrete properties,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 97, p. 110800, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110800.
[29] A. Safari, P. Rafie, S. Taeb, M. Najafi, and S. M. J. Mortazavi, “Development of Lead-Free Materials for Radiation Shielding in Medical Settings: A Review,” J. Biomed. Phys. Eng., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 229–244, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2404-1742.
[30] S.-C. Kim, “Comparison of Shielding Material Dispersion Characteristics and Shielding Efficiency for Manufacturing Medical X-ray Shielding Barriers,” Materials, vol. 15, no. 17, p. 6075, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/ma15176075.
[31] Z. Li, W. Zhou, X. Zhang, Y. Gao, and S. Guo, “High-efficiency, flexibility and lead-free X-ray shielding multilayered polymer composites: layered structure design and shielding mechanism,” Sci. Rep., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4384, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83031-4.
[32] S.-C. Kim, “Performance Evaluation of Radiation-Shielding Materials and Process Technology for Manufacturing Skin Protection Cream,” Materials, vol. 16, no. 8, p. 3059, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/ma16083059.
[33] S. Palanisami et al., “Investigation on Physico Chemical and X-ray Shielding Performance of Zinc Doped Nano-WO3 Epoxy Composite for Light Weight Lead Free Aprons,” Materials, vol. 16, no. 10, p. 3866, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/ma16103866.
[34] L. Sidauruk, H. A. Sianturi, M. Rianna, T. Sembiring, and D. A. Barus, “Determination of Half Value Layer (HVL) Value on X-Rays Radiography with using Aluminum, Copper and Lead (Al, Cu, and Sn) Attenuators,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1116, p. 032032, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1116/3/032032.
[35] A. Alharbi, H. Alnagran, and S. Alashrah, “Simulation of Gamma-Ray Attenuation in Zeolite–Polymer Composites for Low-Cost Sustainable Radiation Shielding,” Polymers, vol. 17, no. 23, p. 3141, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/polym17233141.
[36] A. P. Sauter et al., “Optimization of tube voltage in X-ray dark-field chest radiography,” Sci. Rep., vol. 9, p. 8699, 2019.
[37] S. A. Rif’ah, “Pengaruh Perubahan kV, mAs dan Ketebalan Objek terhadap Dosis Radiasi pada Pemeriksaan Radiografi,” Universitas Brawijaya, 2020.
[38] N. Asari Shik and L. Gholamzadeh, “X-ray shielding performance of the EPVC composites with micro- or nanoparticles of WO3, PbO or Bi2O3,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 139, pp. 61–65, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2018.03.025.
[39] M. I. Abbas, A. M. El-Khatib, M. F. Dib, H. E. Mustafa, M. I. Sayyed, and M. Elsafi, “The Influence of Bi2O3 Nanoparticle Content on the γ-ray Interaction Parameters of Silicon Rubber,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 1048, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3390/polym14051048.
[40] M. T. Alresheedi et al., “Assessment of Silicone Rubber/Lead Oxide Composites Enriched with Bi2O3, WO3, BaO, and SnO2 Nanoparticles for Radiation Shielding Applications,” Polymers, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 2160, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.3390/polym15092160.
[41] X.-P. Li et al., “Polymer-based nuclear radiation shielding materials: state-of-the-art and emerging trends for engineering applications,” Front. Mater., vol. 12, p. 1672938, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.3389/fmats.2025.1672938.
[42] Q. Chang, S. Guo, and X. Zhang, “Radiation shielding polymer composites: Ray-interaction mechanism, structural design, manufacture and biomedical applications,” Mater. Des., vol. 233, p. 112253, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112253.
Copyright (c) 2026 Fathur Rahman Nugraha, Kusnanto Mukti Wibowo, Arga Pratama Rahardian, Fani Susanto, Supriyadi Supriyadi (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlikel 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
