Iron (III) Oxide-Based Ceramic Material for Radiation Shielding
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The English language of the manuscript can be further improved.
The Introduction part must be elaborated with more recent works done on this topic "radiation shielding".
Some other relevant shielding parameters like HVL, MFP, etc. should be evaluated and presented with a comparison to standard shields such as Steel, concrete, and Lead.
Author Response
The Introduction part must be elaborated with more recent works done on this topic "radiation shielding". Some other relevant shielding parameters like HVL, MFP, etc. should be evaluated and presented with a comparison to standard shields such as Steel, concrete, and Lead.
Our reply: According to the helpful comment, we added new review article as ref.1 and added our motive of this work in the last paragraph of the Introducton sections follows: In this study, we have developed a new ceramic material with a high shielding capacity against the high-energy gamma radiation from 137Cs and 60Co sources. As we have experienced difficulties during the reconstruction of the concrete shielding wall of the liniac room, brick type of shielding material which can be fast assembled in situ, with a flexibility to be shaped any form was expected to replace the conventional concrete shielding. Although the material containing 65% Fe (Fe3O4 and Fe2O3) have been used for the production of bricks [7], we had been not sure that nearly 99% Fe2O3 (Iron (III) oxide) purified from the waste material of steel sheet production could be sintered into brick. Unexpectedly, we successfully burned raw material containing iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) into a hard ceramic brick that showed a shielding capacity of 0.278 m (cm-1) for the 60Co gamma ray source, which is twice that of the bricks commonly used for construction. It was comparable to that of the heavy concrete specifically designed for radiation shielding as well.
We also added HVL values in the reference of Table 3 as follows: * linear attenuation coefficient (m) calculated by the equation in section 2.2 is indicated in parentheses. Mean values of m for 1332 keV, 1173 keV, and 662 keV are0.268, 0.279, and 0.355, respectively. The calculated HVL values for these mean m values are 2.58, 2.48, and 1.95, respectively.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the manuscript "Iron (III) oxide-based ceramic material for radiation shielding" by Hiroyuki Mori, Yohei Oku, Yudo Mannami, Takahiro Kunisada.
Overall, the article makes a good impression. The content is appropriately structured, and text can be followed fluently.
However, the reviewer finds the text a bit shot, especially at the starting point where no detailed explanation is given about the origin of the current research and the background of the obtained results, including previous steps, which finally lead to the publication.
Since this is the only minor criticism, the paper can be accepted for the publication in "Ceramics" after more detailed information is provided.
Author Response
However, the reviewer finds the text a bit shot, especially at the starting point where no detailed explanation is given about the origin of the current research and the background of the obtained results, including previous steps, which finally lead to the publication.
Our reply: According to the helpful comment, we added new review article as ref.1 and added our motive of this work in the last paragraph of the Introducton section as follows: In this study, we have developed a new ceramic material with a high shielding capacity against the high-energy gamma radiation from 137Cs and 60Co sources. As we have experienced difficulties during the reconstruction of the concrete shielding wall of the liniac room, brick type of shielding material which can be fast assembled in situ, with a flexibility to be shaped any form was expected to replace the conventional concrete shielding. Although the material containing 65% Fe (Fe3O4 and Fe2O3) have been used for the production of bricks [7], we had been not sure that nearly 99% Fe2O3 (Iron (III) oxide) purified from the waste material of steel sheet production could be sintered into brick. Unexpectedly, we successfully burned raw material containing iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) into a hard ceramic brick that showed a shielding capacity of 0.278 m (cm-1) for the 60Co gamma ray source, which is twice that of the bricks commonly used for construction. It was comparable to that of the heavy concrete specifically designed for radiation shielding as well.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article explores Iron (III) oxide-based brick instead of other well-known shielding materials (e.g. ceramic bricks, lead, concrete, etc...) for gamma radiation shielding capability . Shielding from radiation has been regarded as an important subject in medical physics, clinical radiotherapy, and industrial radiation for ensuring the safety of patients and technicians working in this field. The authors used Fe2O3 purified from the waste material of steel sheet production.
Remarks
- Page 1 , line 40-41., what about the heating and cooling rate after pressing the powder? Did the authors blend the iron powders with liquid or polymer to reach a highly densified product?
The authors mentioned that “The powder was then subjected to a firing process up to 1320 ℃ and cooled to room temperature, and allowed to rest for 10 days”
- What can be seen from X-ray diffraction pattern (intensity count) is that the raw material is more crystallized than the fired one!. It would be better if the authors include the 2 XRD patterns into one chart
- Page 3 , line 103, what does the authors mean by the ceramic has a low stoma rate?
- Page 1 line 25 , there is no references for the value of m of various concrete mixtures (0.15–0.19).
- Page 4, Concerning Table 4, there is also no references for the cited materials in comparison with Fe2O3 based ceramic for gamma ray and neutron. The authors did not include information in the experimental section about these materials if they used them in their work.
- Page 1 , line 34 The word experimantal, Please include e instead of a
- Page 1 , line 31 , Thrice , I think it is twice
more english spell check need to be revised
Author Response
The article explores Iron (III) oxide-based brick instead of other well-known shielding materials (e.g. ceramic bricks, lead, concrete, etc...) for gamma radiation shielding capability . Shielding from radiation has been regarded as an important subject in medical physics, clinical radiotherapy, and industrial radiation for ensuring the safety of patients and technicians working in this field. The authors used Fe2O3 purified from the waste material of steel sheet production.
Remarks
Page 1 , line 40-41., what about the heating and cooling rate after pressing the powder? Did the authors blend the iron powders with liquid or polymer to reach a highly densified product? The authors mentioned that “The powder was then subjected to a firing process up to 1320 ℃ and cooled to room temperature, and allowed to rest for 10 days”
Our reply: Heating was just done as usual brick in our facility, about 15 degrees per hour and for cooling, we just let the materials cool in the kiln for 10days.
What can be seen from X-ray diffraction pattern (intensity count) is that the raw material is more crystallized than the fired one!. It would be better if the authors include the 2 XRD patterns into one chart.
Our reply: Our chart is just showing that the peak positions (sensor angle of the detector) from the main ingredient Fe2O3 (9 main peaks were clearly shown) did not change after firing, which means that the micro crystal structure of Fe2O3 was maintained even after firing. Intensity of the peaks were measured by the different apparatus, one is good for particles and the other for brick. Increase of the crystalized particle size is apparent in Figure 2. We thank for these specific comments.
Page 3 , line 103, what does the authors mean by the ceramic has a low stoma rate?
Our reply: Although low stoma rate is expected from the Figure 2, we did not measure the stoma rate of our ceramic, therefore, we deleted the description on the stoma rate. Thank you for your critical comment.
Page 1 line 25 , there is no references for the value of m of various concrete mixtures (0.15–0.19)
Our reply: We added the particular reference (Cement Concrete Composite2018, 92, 56-59.)as suggested.
Page 4, Concerning Table 4, there is also no references for the cited materials in comparison with Fe2O3 based ceramic for gamma ray and neutron. The authors did not include information in the experimental section about these materials if they used them in their work.
Our reply: These values for the materials appeared in Table 4 were all real materials we used in the experimant performed in this manuscript, not the cited values.
Page 1 , line 34 The word experimental, Please include e instead of a
Our reply: We corrected this as suggested.
Page 1 , line 31 , Thrice , I think it is twice more English spell check need to be revised
Our reply: We corrected this and we also corrected the other errors in the manuscript as shown in red characters. Thank you for the critical reading of our manuscript.
