LEEDS UNIVERSITY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
H*(10)/ H*(10) for 0.25 mm Pb
2 1.8
RxBx
1.6
BxRx
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
R1 & B7
R2 & B6
R3 & B5
R4 & B4
LF1
skin dose / skin dose for 0.25 mm Pb
Figure 1: H*(10) for each bi-layer sample and the lead free composite material normalised to the H*(10) for 0.25 mm lead foil. Red bars RxBx (lead closest to tube), blue bars BxRx (antimony closest to tube), grey bar LF1 (lead free composite).
2 1.8
RxBx
1.6
BxRx
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
R1 & B7
R2 & B6
R3 & B5
R4 & B4
LF1
Figure 2: H’(0.07) for each bi-layer sample and the lead free composite material normalised to the H’(0.07) for 0.25 mm lead foil. Red bars RxBx (lead closest to tube), blue bars BxRx (antimony closest to tube), grey bar LF1 (lead composite).
Discussion and conclusions Discussion andsuggest conclusions These results that using the bi-layer samples with antimony at the tube side can result in a reduction dose of up toantimony 20% compared withside 0.25can mmresult lead in a These results suggest that using in theeffective bi-layer samples with at the tube foil. By contrast, the lead-free composite material was found to increase effective reduction in effective dose of up to 20% compared with 0.25 mm lead foil. By contrast, the lead-free dose by approximately 20% compared with a lead foil 0.25 mm thick.
composite material was found to increase effective dose by approximately 20% compared with a lead foil 0.25 mm thick.
INFAB . 1040 Avenida Acaso. Camarillo, CA, USA 93012 www.InfabCorp.com . P: 805-987-5255 . F: 805-482-8424