ArticleScientific reports2026
Fabrication of medical radiation shielding sheets using reactive densification-based tungsten/PE porous composite materials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
X-ray shielding materials used in medical institutions are applied in various forms, including garments, sheets, films, and membranes, and recent studies have actively focused on the adoption of environmentally friendly materials and processing technologies. In this study, lead-free radiation shielding sheets were designed and fabricated by introducing an HDPE/W/ADCA-based foaming-calendering process as an alternative to conventional lead-based X-ray shields. The correlation between microstructural characteristics and shielding performance was quantitatively analyzed using a reactive densification model. HDPE/W/ADCA composites were first prepared as foamable preforms with thicknesses of 1.0-2.0 mm through twin-screw compounding followed by single-screw sheet extrusion. Subsequently, multi-stage calendering was applied at temperatures ranging from 100 to 140 °C to produce final shielding sheets with a thickness of 0.3 mm. FESEM analysis revealed that tungsten particles were uniformly distributed throughout the cross-section of the sheets, while residual pores were present only in fine, localized forms. The shielding efficiency evaluated under medical X-ray conditions (60-120 kVp) ranged from 92.63% to 78.80%, which is approximately 5% points lower than that of lead sheets of the same thickness (97.67-84.86%), corresponding to about 95% of the relative shielding performance of lead. According to the reactive densification model, the enhanced flowability of the polymer matrix contributed to the effective dispersion of metal particles and a localized increase in effective density, indicating that a thickness increase of only approximately 0.02-0.05 mm would be sufficient to achieve shielding performance comparable to that of lead. These results suggest that controlling local density and particle dispersion is a critical design parameter in the development of lightweight and flexible lead-free radiation shielding materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.