Estimating dose and interaction of X-rays with cellulose-based fibrous materials using micro-computed tomography
Source abstract
Abstract
Micro-computed tomography (ìCT) has a reputation as a nondestructive analysis method. Unfortunately, this leads to the common misconception that radiation damage of the sample does not play a role. With the increased use of ìCT in laboratory-based machines, more and more cellulose-based materials are studied. In this paper, we show with three examples that radiation damage is important in dry and wet paper and in viscose fibers. In an attempt to quantify radiation damage, we came up with a workflow that enables researchers to predict the X-ray dose within a laboratory-based ìCT machine. This gives researchers the possibility to quantitatively judge the influence of radiation damage on each measured sample. While one cannot extend the measured doses from one machine to another, one can still apply the work flow presented in this study to any ìCT setup. In this way, it is possible to minimize radiation damage by choosing the best parameters in a ìCT for obtaining perfect data with no or little radiation damage.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Radiation Shielding Materials Analysis · Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging · Radiation Dose and Imaging
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
LKH Hochsteiermark
Graz University of Technology
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. 1.Thibault, X. and Bloch, J.-F., Text. Res. J. 72(6): 480(2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/004051750207200603. DOI: 10.1177/00405175020720060310.1177/004051750207200603 ↗
2. 2.Machado-Charry, E., Neumann, M., Lahti, J., et al., J. Microsc. 272(1): 35(2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jmi.12730. DOI: 10.1111/jmi.1273010.1111/jmi.12730 ↗
3. 3. Urstöger, G.J., Kulachenko, A., Schennach, R., et al., Cellulose 27(15): 8567(2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03367-4. DOI: 10.1007/s10570-020-03367-410.1007/s10570-020-03367-4 ↗
4. 4. Neumann, M., Machado-Charry, E., Baikova, E., et al., Microsc. Microanal. 27(6): 1305(2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/s1431927621012563. DOI: 10.1017/S143192762101256310.1017/S1431927621012563 ↗
5. 5. du Roscoat, S.R., Bloch, J.-F., and Thibault, X., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 38(10A): A78(2005). https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/38/10A/015. DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/38/10A/01510.1088/0022-3727/38/10A/015 ↗
6. 6. Chinga-Carrasco, G., Axelsson, M., Eriksen, Ø., et al., J. Pulp Pap. Sci. 34(1): 13(2008).
7. 7. Holmstad, R., Goel, A., Ramaswamy, S., et al., Appita J. 59(5): 370(2006). https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.530871391330541.
8. 8. Neumann, M., Gräfensteiner, P., Machado Charry, E., et al., Adv. Theory Simul. 7(8): 2301261(2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/adts.202301261. DOI: 10.1002/adts.20230126110.1002/adts.202301261 ↗
9. 9. Seltzer, S.M., Bartlett, D.T., Burns, D.T., et al., J. ICRU 11(1): 1(2011). https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/ndr011. DOI: 10.1093/jicru/ndr00710.1093/jicru/ndr007 ↗
10. 10. Poludniowski, G., Omar, A., and Andreo, P., Calculating X-ray Tube Spectra: Analytical and Monte Carlo Approaches, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022. DOI: 10.1201/978100305816810.1201/9781003058168 ↗
11. 11. Bujila, R., Omar, A., and Poludniowski, G., Phys. Med. 75: 44(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.04.026. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.04.02610.1016/j.ejmp.2020.04.026 ↗
12. 12. Poludniowski, G., Omar, A., Bujila, R., et al., Med. Phys. 48(7): 3630(2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14945. DOI: 10.1002/mp.1494510.1002/mp.14945 ↗
13. 13. aRTist - Analytical RT Inspection Simulation Tool, BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Berlin. Available [Online] https://www.artist.bam.de/en/index.htm <03March2026>.
14. 14. Araki, F., Radiat. Phys. Chem. 188: 109595(2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109595. DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.10959510.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109595 ↗
15. 15. XCOM: Photon Cross Sections Database, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Physical Measurement Laboratory, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Available [Online] https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Xcom/html/xcom1.html <03March2026>.
16. 16. Fuchs, M., Machado Charry, E., Böhm, G., et al., “Where is the water,” in Advances in Pulp and Paper Research, Cambridge 2022, Trans. of the XVIIth Fund. Res. Symp. Cambridge, 2022 (D. Coffin and W. Batchelor, Eds.), FRC, Manchester, 2022, pp. 495–510. https://doi.org/10.15376/frc.2022.1.495. DOI: 10.15376/frc.2022.1.49510.15376/frc.2022.1.495 ↗
17. 17. Ferreira, E.S., Drummond, J., Veiga, A.T.V., et al., Carbohydr. Polym. 311: 120785(2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.120785. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.12078510.1016/j.carbpol.2023.120785 ↗
18. 18. Wegele, P., Rosén, T., and Söderberg, D., Exp. Fluids 65(9):140(2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-024-03869-y. DOI: 10.1007/s00348-024-03869-y10.1007/s00348-024-03869-y ↗
19. 19. Fischer, R., Schlepütz, C.M., Hegemann, D., et al., Phys. Rev. E 103(5): 053101(2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.103.053101. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.103.05310110.1103/PhysRevE.103.053101 ↗
20. 20. Schindler, P., “Impact of µCT measurement parameters on applied dose and radiation damage on cellulosic materials,” Master’s the-sis, Graz University of Technology (TU Graz), Graz, Austria, 2025.
21. 21. Megusar, J., J. Nucl. Mater. 245(2): 185(1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(97)00012-3. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3115(97)00012-310.1016/S0022-3115(97)00012-3 ↗
22. 22. Sun, J., Xu, L., and Ge, M., J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 127(3): 1630(2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/APP.37544. DOI: 10.1002/app.3754410.1002/app.37544 ↗
23. 23. Yang, G., Zhang, Y., and Wei, M., Carbohydr. Polym. 81: 114(2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.02.003. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.02.00310.1016/j.carbpol.2010.02.003 ↗
24. 24. List, R., Gonzalez-Lopez, L., and Ashfaq, A., Polymers 15(23): 4483(2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15234483. DOI: 10.3390/polym1523448310.3390/polym15234483 ↗
25. 25. Kawrakow, I., Rogers, D.W.O., Mainegra-Hing, E., et al., EGSnrc Toolkit for Monte Carlo Simulation of Ionizing Radiation Transport, National Research Council Canada, Metrology Research Centre, Ottawa, 2000. https://doi.org/10.4224/40001303.
26. 26. PENELOPE: A Code System for Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1787/32da5043-en. DOI: 10.1787/32da5043-en10.1787/32da5043-en ↗
27. 27. Andreev, M., Marmiroli, B., and Schennach, R., Microelectron. Eng. 256: 111720(2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2022.111720. DOI: 10.1016/j.mee.2022.11172010.1016/j.mee.2022.111720 ↗
28. 28. Parihar, A., Vongsvivut, J., and Bhattacharya, ACS Omega 4:8747(2019). https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b03681. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.8b0368110.1021/acsomega.8b03681 ↗
29. 29. Su, X.-J., Zhang, C.-Y., and Li, W.-J., Appl. Sci. 10(3): 1130(2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10031130. DOI: 10.3390/app1003113010.3390/app10031130 ↗
30. 30. Costagliola, A., Vandenborre, J., Blain, G., et al., J. Phys. Chem. C 121(44): 24548(2017). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b07299. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b0729910.1021/acs.jpcc.7b07299 ↗
31. 31. Andreo, P., Burns, D.T., Nahum, A.E., et al., Fundamentals of Ionizing Radiation Dosimetry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2017.
32. 32. Seltzer, S.M., Fernandez-Varea, J.M., Andreo, P., et al., Key Data for Ionizing-Radiation Dosimetry: Measurement Standards and Applications, ICRU Report 90, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, USA, 2016.
33. 33. Andreo, P., Phys. Med. Biol. 64(20): 205019(2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab421d. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab421d10.1088/1361-6560/ab421d ↗
34. 34. X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Available [Online] https://www.nist.gov/pml/x-ray-mass-attenuation-coefficients <05March2026>.