Radiation Physics and Chemistry 184 (2021) 109437

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Radiation Physics and Chemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/radphyschem

X-ray spectra and gamma factors from 70 to 120 kV X-ray tube voltages
Guillermo Eduardo Campillo-Rivera a, *, Carina Oliva Torres-Cortes a, Joel Vazquez-Bañuelos a,
Mayra Guadalupe Garcia-Reyna a, Claudia Angelica Marquez-Mata b, Marcial Vasquez-Arteaga c,
Hector Rene Vega-Carrillo d
a
Programa de Doctorado en Ingenieria y Tecnologia Aplicada, Unidad Academica de Ingenieria Electrica, Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas, Av. Lopez Velarde 800,
Col. Centro, 98000, Zacatecas, Zac, Mexico
b
TecNM/Instituto Tecnologico de Aguascalientes, Av. Adolfo Lopez Mateos 1801 Ote., Frac. Bona Gens., 20256, Aguascalientes, Ags, Mexico
c
Universidad Sr de Sipán, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru
d
Unidad Académica de Estudios Nucleares, Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas, Ciprés 10, Fracc. La Peñuela, 98060, Zacatecas, Zac, Mexico

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The energy distribution of photons (spectrum) produced in X-ray generators, or X-ray tubes, depends on current,
X-rays voltage and the target/filter combination; in turn, the dose depends on the spectrum. During the X-ray tube
Spectra operation, the dose is due the direct beam or useful beam, the leaking out from the X-ray unit, and those photons
Air kerma
scattered by the patient. The dose rate must be reduced to allowable limits using a shielding. In the shielding
Ambient dose equivalent
Gamma factors
design an important parameter is the dose normalized to the current and the time, that in this work we named
Monte Carlo Gamma factor, as the factor used for gamma-ray sources. In this work analog Monte Carlo methods were used to
calculate the photon spectra and the Gamma factors for air-Kerma and the Ambient dose equivalent for 70, 80,
90, 100 and 120 kV X-ray tubes having tungsten target and aluminum filter. The mean energies of photon spectra
were calculated and the conversion coefficients for H*(10) and Ka per unit fluence were calculated and compared
with the coefficients for monoenergetic photons. The glass enclosure and the filter eliminate the low-energy
photons; calculated spectra show the continuous X-ray distribution due to Bremsstrahlung and the discrete
distribution, due to characteristics X-rays. Photon fluences and doses depend on the X-ray unit voltage. Both
gamma factors are similar to values recommended in norms while the fluence-to-dose (Ka and H*(10)) con­
version coefficients in function of the mean energy are larger than the fluence-to-dose conversion coefficients for
monoenergetic photons.

1. Introduction the image quality is compromised by the equipment technology and the
technician’s experience and expertise. In radiology the X-ray systems are
Around us there are natural and artificial ionizing radiation sources in constant development, thus machine learning algorithms have been
that contribute to radiation exposure. Natural radiation sources include developed to improve the efficiency in the detection of small lesions
radioisotopes in the earth, water, air, food and radiation due to cosmic (Willemink et al., 2020; Campillo-Rivera et al., 2019).
rays. Artificial radiation sources are produced in anthropogenic activ­ Radiological techniques include conventional radiographs,
ities such as: energy production, mining, biology, forensics, medicine computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET),
etc. The largest source of exposure is the use of radiation sources in mammography and dental radiography. Micro focal, digital and real
medicine (Omori et al., 2020; Blakely, 2000; Webster, 1995). time techniques are advanced radiographic methods having better
In magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, X or γ-ray imaging the image definition and faster image processing improving the capability of
patient is exposed to radiation sources; some are no-ionizing while detecting small defects. X-ray images allow a faster and cheaper diag­
another are ionizing. The image is a power tool to improve the diagnosis, nosis being in growing demand contributing to the exposure to ionizing
to follow up the evolution of a medical treatment or to help the treat­ radiation in the population (Teles et al., 2020; Vazquez-Bañuelos, 2019).
ment planning. Therefore, the image quality is important; unfortunately ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) is a basic principle of

* Corresponding author. UaIN – Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas, Av. Lopez Velarde # 800, Col. Centro, 98000, Zacatecas, Zac, Mexico.
E-mail address: guillermo_campillo_rivera@hotmail.com (G.E. Campillo-Rivera).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109437
Received 27 October 2020; Received in revised form 3 March 2021; Accepted 11 March 2021
Available online 17 March 2021
0969-806X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G.E. Campillo-Rivera et al. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 184 (2021) 109437

radiation protection where time, distance and shielding are combined to recommendations to report the results have been provided (Sechopoulos
reduce the radiation exposure. In radiation shielding the thicknesses of et al., 2015, 2018).
walls, ceiling and floor (barriers) are calculated in order to reduce the Recently, Omar, Andreo and Poludniowski (2020a) developed an
radiation levels. Barriers of halls having X-ray equipment for diagnosis analytical model for bremsstrahlung production. In their model were
must be calculated to reduce the dose due to the direct X-ray beam as included the electron distribution and the bremsstrahlung angular dis­
well as the dose due to X-rays that leak-out from the X-ray unit and the tribution. Later, the enhanced their analytical model including the
dose due to X-rays scattered-out from the patient body. Thus, the dose production of characteristic X-rays. Their model was validated by
outside the barriers must be as low as the weekly permissible dose for comparing their results with other analytical models, experimental data
radiation workers or for the public (Holroyd, 2018; Okunade, 2005; and Monte Carlo calculations (Omar, Andreo and Poludniowski, 2020b).
NCRP, 2004). X-rays are produced in the target (anode), mainly around the focal
For occupational exposed individual or radiation worker the annual spot, through the collimator, and passing through the filter, the primary
Effective dose limit based on stochastic effect is 50 mSv/year. Including X-ray beam is directed toward the patient and the image receptor. The
the restriction of 100 mSv in 5 years the average annual dose limit is 20 dose rate, per radiography, from this primary radiation source (Δ in
mSv/year. For shielding design the allowable weekly dose limit at any mGy or in mSv), which is function of the operational voltage, is directly
area can be defined in terms of operational or radiation protection proportional to the X-ray current (I in mA) and the exposure time (t in
quantities (ICRP, 1991; NCRP, 1993; ICRP, 1996; NCRP, 2004; Okun­ minutes) and inversely proportional to square of the distance between
dade, 2005; NOM, 2006) or in terms of Air Kerma (Ka) under the con­ the focal spot to the occupied area (d in meters) as is shown in equation
dition that the annual Effective dose limit is fulfilled. (1).
In shielding design the areas to be protected are defined as
I t
Controlled and Uncontrolled whose weekly dose limit are 0.1 mSv/week Δ = ΓΔ (1)
d2
and 0.02 mSv/week for dose equivalent respectively. In terms of Ka the
limits are 0.1 mGy/week and 0.02 mGy/week for controlled and un­ In equation (1) ΓΔ is the Gamma factor for the dosimetric quantity Δ
controlled areas respectively. The voltage, and its rectification, filters to 1 m from the focal spot, in mGy-m2 o mSv-m2 per mA-minute. This
and the target angle modifies the air-kerma rate; in the aim to determine Gamma factor is alike to the dose rate constants defined for point-like
de Ka. Lopez Gonzalez et al. (2016) measured the spectra of 40–150 kV gamma-ray sources (Smith and Stabin, 2012; Pibida et al., 2008; Nin­
X-ray tubes of secondary and transmitted photons. Also, Santos et al. kovic et al., 2005; Wasserman and Groenwald, 1988; Ungar and Truby,
(2016) measured the X-ray spectra for 50–150 kV X ray generators. In 1982). The ΓΔ factor is also named Output of constant potential of the
both works the X-ray tubes have a tungsten target and with the spectra X-ray generator to 1 m from the target (ICRP, 1982).
the Ka-to-H*(10) ratios were obtained and reported in terms of the The objective of this work was to estimate the X-ray spectra for X-ray
spectra mean energy. Katho et al. (2011) measured this parameter in tubes and to calculate the Gamma factor in terms of Air Kerma (ΓKa) and
X-ray tubes with tungsten target varying the voltage and the thickness of the Ambient dose equivalent (ΓH*(10)). Calculations were carried out to
aluminum filter. X-ray tubes working to 70, 80, 90, 100 and 120 kV with tungsten target
During operation the X-ray tube there are three sources of radiation: and aluminum filter. Also, the fluence-to-Ka and the fluence-to-H*(10)
primary (Pri), leakage (L) and the scattered radiation (Sca) by the irra­ conversion coefficients were calculated and compared with the con­
diated object (patient). The total dose rate per radiographic image (ΔT) version coefficients for monoenergetic photons.
in the occupied area due to these three sources is ΔT = ΔPri+ΔSca+ΔL. For external radiation the dose coefficients, also named fluence-to-
These doses are scaled up to the facility workload. Each source must be dose conversion coefficients, link the operational and the protection
analyzed in the aim to calculate the shielding thickness to reduce it to quantities to radiation fluence (Dewji and Hertel, 2019).
allowable dose rate limits (Okunade, 2005; NCRP, 2004; NCRP, 2003). Conversion coefficients are used for facilities shielding design and to
In X-ray analytical techniques, radiological protection and radiation assess the radiation risk exposed population (Alghamdi et al., 2005;
dosimetry is important to know the X-ray spectra; these can be calcu­ Bloch et al., 2016; Lopez Gonzalez et al., 2016). In actual situations the
lated or measured. Calculations are carried out using deterministic or particle fluence can be measured and the conversion coefficients are
Monte Carlo methods (Poludniowski, 2007; Boone, 1998). used to transform the fluence to the required dosimetric quantity
Birch and Marshall (1979) developed a semiempirical model to (Rogers, 1984; Santos et al., 2016). Conversion coefficients for neutrons,
calculate the X-ray spectra from 30 to 150 kV, calculated spectra were electrons and photons have been widely reported in literature (ANS,
also measured with a Ge(Li) and NaI(Tl) detectors. Boone (1998) 1977; ICRU, 1998; ICRP, 2010).
developed a parametric model to define the X-ray beam quality. Bath
et al. (1998) did compare the X-ray spectra calculated by different 2. Materials and methods
computational procedures with measured spectra.
The use of Monte Carlo methods to calculate the X-ray spectra allows X-ray spectra and the dosimetric quantities were estimated using
to use complex geometries and to track the transport of electrons, and analog Monte Carlo method with the code MCNP5 (X-5 Monte Carlo
secondary particles. Some Monte Carlo-based codes, like EGS4, MCNP, Team, 2003). In this code the electron transport is modeled using the
BEAMnrc, and ITS has been used to calculate the X-ray spectra produced continuous slowing down approximation energy loss. In order to track
by mammography X-ray tube with different combinations of target and an electron through a significant energy-loss, the electron path is broken
filter (Ay et al., 2004) and for 150 kV x-ray tube (Rodriguez-Ibarra et al., in several steps that are picked short enough allowing that the mean
2016). energy loss is small, and long enough allowing several collisions. The
Monte Carlo codes has been also used to compare the spectra ob­ Goudsmit-Saunderson theory (Goudsmit and Saunderson, 1940a,
tained by deterministic codes like SpekCalc (Poludniowski et al., 2009) 1940b) is used to sample from the angular deflections distribution. The
or to evaluate the performance of different procedures to unfold the sampling of bremsstrahlung is addressed in every electron substep
X-ray spectra (Shafahi et al., 2020). Also, Monte Carlo codes has been relaying mainly on the Bethe-Heitler theory (Bethe and Heitler, 1934).
developed to calculate the X-ray spectra from units with different pur­ For improving the efficiency of electron and photon transport the code
poses to image diagnosis like energy dispersive spectrometer attached to has two physics cards (PHYS:E and PHYS:P) that bias the production of
a scanning electron microscope (Gauvin et al., 2006; Gauvin and secondary electrons by photons, the coherent scattering, the angular
Michaud, 2009; Cheol-Ha et al., 2018). distribution of bremsstrahlung photons, and the production of charac­
Due to the wide use of Monte Carlo methods to determine the X-ray teristic X-rays. Thus, for photon transport the code includes coherent
spectra for therapy and diagnostic Medical Physics several and Compton scattering as well as the bremsstrahlung production and

2
G.E. Campillo-Rivera et al. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 184 (2021) 109437

Table 1 the characteristic X-ray production after photoelectric absorption. (Ay

Elements and densities of Monte Carlo model materials. et al., 2004).
Item Model elements Density [g/cm3] The X-ray tube was modeled using the data of a commercial X-ray
tube. In the model the target was built as tungsten truncated cone having
Target W 19.3
Glass O, Na, Si, Ca 2.4 an inclination of 21.8◦ encased in vacuum with 0.20 cm-thick glass (4
Air N, O, Ar 1.205 × 10− 3 cm-radius). The X-ray tube is inside the 0.25 cm-thick lead housing (5
Lead shielding Pb 11.35 cm-radius) with a 0.75 cm-radius opening, below of this is the 0.28 cm-
Filter (Al2O3) Al, O 3.987 thick aluminum filter. In Table 1 are included the materials used to build
Target axis Cu 8.96
the model.
A monoenergetic 0.028209 cm-radius electron beam (pencil-beam)
was sent toward the tungsten target. The pencil-beam radius assures a
0.05 × 0.05 cm2 focal spot. Calculations were carried out for 70, 80, 90,
100 and 120 keV monoenergetic electrons (Seibert and Boone, 2005;
Seibert, 2004). The X-rays produced during the electron interactions
were determined using the EL03 library for electrons (White, 2012) and
the MCPLIB04 library for photons (Brown, 2013). Because this is an
analog Monte Carlo calculation none variance reduction techniques
were used.
Using tally f5 the X-ray spectra were estimated to 0.75 cm (between
the target and the glass (position 1)), 2.25 cm (between the glass and the
lead housing (position 2)), 3.75 cm (below the filter (position 3)), and to
100 cm (position 4) from the focal spot which is the site where electrons
collide with the target. The spectra were estimated from 0 to 120 keV in
1 keV wide groups. In the calculations 2 × 108 histories were used
allowing uncertainties less than 5%. In Fig. 1 is shown the X-ray tube
model as well as the positions where the spectra were estimated.
To 1 m from the focal spot the X-ray spectrum (ΦX(E)) was used to
calculate the Ka and the H*(10), per history, using the X-ray fluence-to-
Air Kerma conversion coefficients (ka(E)) and the X-ray fluence–to-
Ambient dose equivalent conversion coefficients (h*(E)) (ICRP, 1996),
as is shown in equations (2) and (3). This calculation was made using the
fm card for Ka and H*(10).
∫
Ka = ΦX (E) ka(E) dE (2)

∫
Fig. 1. Model of the X-ray tube.
H * (10) = ΦX (E) h*(E) dE (3)

Fig. 2. X-ray spectra at positions 1, 2, 3, and 4, produced by the X-ray tube working to 70 kV.

3
G.E. Campillo-Rivera et al. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 184 (2021) 109437

Fig. 3. X-ray spectra at positions 1, 2, 3, and 4, produced by the X-ray tube working to 80 kV.

Fig. 4. X-ray spectra at positions 1, 2, 3, and 4, produced by the X-ray tube working to 90 kV.

Using equation (1), the Ka and H*(10) per history to 1 m, were used 3. - results and discussion
to calculate the ΓKa and the ΓH*(10) factors in mA-min.
The mean energy of X ray spectra was estimated for each operation In Figs. 2–6 are shown the photon spectra in position 1, 2, 3 and 4 for
voltage; with the dosimetric quantities the Ka-to-H*(10) ratios were 70, 80, 90, 100, and 120 keV X-rays.
calculated. Also, the doses per unit photon fluence were calculated and The end-energy of each spectrum is related to the voltage. In all cases
compared with those for monoenergetic photons from the ICRP 74 the X-ray spectra in position 1 have the largest contribution of low en­
(ICRP, 1996). ergy photons, after reaching position 2 low energy photons are

4
G.E. Campillo-Rivera et al. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 184 (2021) 109437

Fig. 5. X-ray spectra at positions 1, 2, 3, and 4, produced by the X-ray tube working to 100 kV.

Fig. 6. X-ray spectra at positions 1, 2, 3, and 4, produced by the X-ray tube working to 120 kV.

attenuated by the glass and practically eliminated by the filter (position energy photons resulting in harder spectra (Boone and Siebert, 1997;
3) (Boone and Siebert, 1997; Behrman and Yasuda, 1998). Behrman and Yasuda, 1998).
The mean energy of X-ray spectra in position 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown In Fig. 7 are shown the X-ray spectra in position 4 for 70, 80, 90, 100
in Table 2. and 120 kV whose mean energies are 42.4, 45.9, 49.1, 52.0 and 57.2 keV
The spectra mean energies increase as the voltage increases and as respectively.
the site-to-focal spot distance increases, being in agreement with the For all voltages, except for 70 kV, the spectra show the Kα1 (59.32
evidence shown in Figs. 2–6 where glass and filter eliminate the low keV), Kα2 (57.98 keV), Kβ1 (67.24 keV) and Kβ2 (69.1 keV) characteristic

5
G.E. Campillo-Rivera et al. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 184 (2021) 109437

Table 2 distribution characterized by their mean energy. In the interaction with

Photons mean energy, in keV, of 70, 80, 90, 100 and 120 kV X-ray spectra in matter photons with lower energy have a larger probability of being
positions 1, 2, 3, and 4. absorbed through the photoelectric effect and their energy is absorbed,
Position 70 kV 80 kV 90 kV 100 kV 120 kV for photons with larger energies the probability of photoelectric inter­
1 20.8 23.5 26.4 29.3 34.7
action decreases and the probability of Compton scattering increases
2 37.4 40.4 43.3 46.2 51.0 where just part of the photon energy is absorbed and the scattered
3 42.1 45.4 48.5 51.5 56.4 photon can escape.
4 42.4 45.9 49.1 52.0 57.2
4. Conclusions
X-rays which are due to tungsten, while for all voltages the spectra have
The X-ray spectra were estimated and the Γ factors for Ka and H*(10)
the continuous contribution due to Bremsstrahlung photons, being in
were calculated for X-ray tubes working to 70, 80, 90, 100 and 120 kV.
agreement with spectra reported in literature (Boone and Siebert, 1997;
Bath et al., 1998; Lopez Gonzalez et al., 2016). The lack of characteristic
X-rays in the 70 kV-spectrum is probably due to low amount of 57.98, Table 3
59.32, 67.24 and 69.1 keV photons and the low probability of interac­ ΓH*(10), ΓKa factors and Ka-to-H*(10) ratios.
tion between resonant photons and the tungsten K shell.
Voltage ΓH*(10) [mSv-m2/mA- ΓKa [mGy-m2/mA- H*(10)/Ka [Sv/
The ΓH*(10) and ΓKa, are shown in Table 3, also is included the Ka-to- [kV] min] min] Gy]
H*(10) ratios. These values increase as the voltage increases. The ΓKa,
70 3.49 ± 0.01 2.67 ± 0.01 1.31
are in agreement with measurements reported by Katoh et al. (2011) for 80 4.85 ± 0.01 3.57 ± 0.01 1.36
70, 80, 90, 100 and 120 kV X-ray tubes with inverter type high-voltage 90 6.44 ± 0.02 4.60 ± 0.01 1.40
generator. The ΓH*(10) factor are very close to the values recommended 100 8.22 ± 0.01 5.73 ± 0.01 1.43
by the German norm (DIN, 2013) while the ΓKa are close to values re­ 120 12.09 ± 0.02 8.17 ± 0.01 1.48
ported by the ICRP 33 (ICRP, 1982), and those reported by Poludniowski
(2007). Also, the Ka-to-H*(10) ratios are alike those reported by Lopez
Gonzalez et al. (2016) and Santos et al. (2016) in function of the mean Table 4
energy of X-ray spectra. X-ray fluence to 1 m, fluence-to-H*(10) and fluence-to-Ka conversion
Fluence-to-dose conversion coefficients are the dose divided by the coefficients.
total fluence, here the Ka and the H*(10) were divided by the total Voltage X-ray fluence to 1 m [photons/cm2- h*X [pSv- kaX [pGy-
photon fluence in order to obtain the X-ray fluence-to-Air Kerma coef­ [kV] mA-min] cm2] cm2]
ficient (kaX) and the X-ray fluence-to-Ambient dose equivalent (h*X). 70 (5.291 ± 0.012)E(09) 0.660 ± 0.505 ±
These values are shown in Table 4. 0.002 0.002
In Fig. 8 the kaX and h*X coefficients were compared with the 80 (7.626 ± 0.015)E(09) 0.636 ± 0.468 ±
0.002 0.002
fluence-to-dose conversion coefficients for monoenergetic photons
90 (1.039 ± 0.004)E(10) 0.620 ± 0.443 ±
(ICRP, 1996). In order to make this comparison both kaX and h*X, were 0.003 0.002
plotted in terms to the mean energy of the X-ray spectrum (Table 1, 100 (1.349 ± 0.002)E(10) 0.609 ± 0.425 ±
position 4). 0.001 0.001
120 (2.016 ± 0.003)E(10) 0.600 0.405 ±
Conversion coefficients for X-rays are larger than those of mono­ ±
0.001 0.001
energetic photons. In the spectra photons have a broad energy

Fig. 7. X-ray spectra to 1 m from the focal spot (position 4), for 70, 80, 90, 100 and120 kV X-ray tubes.

6
G.E. Campillo-Rivera et al. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 184 (2021) 109437

Fig. 8. Ka and H*(10) conversion coefficients per unit fluence for monoenergetic photons (ka and h*) and for 70, 80, 90, 100 and 120 keV X-rays (kaX and h*X).

The total photon fluence, the Ka-to-H*(10) ratios and the kaX and h*X Ans, 1977. American National Standard: Neutron and Gamma-Ray Flux-To-Dose-Rate
Factors. ANS/ANS 6.1.1-1997. American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park IL (USA).
conversion coefficients were calculated and compared with those of
Ay, M.R., Shahriari, M., Sarkar, S., Adib, M., Zaidi, H., 2004. Monte Carlo simulation of
monoenergetic photons. x-ray spectra in diagnostic radiology and mammography using MCNP4C. Phys. Med.
The X-ray spectra are modified as photon pass through the glass and Biol. 49, 4897–4917. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/21/004.
the filter where photons are absorbed. Behrman, R.H., Yasuda, G., 1998. Effective dose in diagnostic radiology as a function of
x-ray beam filtration for a constant exit dose and constant film density. Med. Phys.
X rays have the continuous spectra due to Bremsstrahlung where the 25, 780–790. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598260.
end-energy is the operation voltage. The discrete spectra show 4 peaks Bethe, H.A., Heitler, W., 1934. On stopping of fast particles and on the creation of
which are characteristic to the tungsten target and are noticed for positive electrons. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 146, 83–112. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspa.1934.0140.
80–120 kV. Bhat, M., Pattison, J., Bibbo, G., Caon, M., 1998. Diagnostic x-ray spectra: a comparison
For 70 kV the discrete spectrum is absent because there are few of spectra generated by different computational methods with a measured spectrum.
resonant photons with the energy to ionize K-shell electrons in the Med. Phys. 25, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598170.
Birch, R., Marshall, M., 1979. Computation of bremsstrahlung X –ray spectra and
tungsten target. comparison with spectra measured with a Ge(Li) detector. Phys. Med. Biol. 24,
To 1 m from the focal spot the ΓKa is 8.17 mGy-m2-mA− 1-min− 1, and 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/24/3/002.
the ΓH*(10) is 12.09 mSv-m2-mA− 1-min− 1. Blakely, E.A., 2000. Biological effects of Cosmic radiation: deterministic and stochastic.
Health Phys. 79, 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200011000-00006.
The kaX and the h*X are larger than the conversion coefficients per Bolch, W.E., Petoussi-Henss, N., Paquet, F., Harrison, J., 2016. ICRP dose coefficients:
unit fluence for monoenergetic photons. computational development and current status. Ann. ICRP 45, 156–177.
Boone, J.M., 1998. The three parameter equivalent spectra as an index of beam quality.
Med. Phys. 15, 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.596223.
Author statment Boone, J.M., Siebert, J.A., 1997. An accurate method for computer-generating tungsten
anode x-ray spectra from 30 to 140 kV. Med. Phys. 24, 1661–1670. https://doi.org/
Any data will be available upon request. 10.1118/1.597953.
Brown, F., 2013. Status of Cross-Section Data Libraries for MCNP. Los Alamos National
Laboratory technical report LA-UR-13-23040.
Declaration of competing interest Campillo-Rivera, G.E., Vazquez-Bañuelos, J., Garcia-Duran, A., Escalona-Llaguno, M.I.,
Vasquez Arteaga, M., Vega-Carrillo, H.R., 2019. Dose in eye lens, thyroid, salivary
glands, mammary glands, and gonads, due to radiation scattered in dental
Authors declare that as far as we know there is not any competing orthopantomography. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 146, 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
interests (financial, academic or scientific) neither personal relationship apradiso.2019.01.022.
Cheol-Ha, B., Seung-Jae, L., Kim, D., 2018. Diagnostic X-ray spectra detection by Monte
that could have appeared to influence the work here reported. Carlo simulation. J. Korean Soc. Radiol. 12, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.7742/
JKSR.2018.12.3.289.
Acknowledgments Dewji, S.A., Hertel, N.E. (Eds.), 2019. Advanced Radiation Protection Dosimetry. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Fl (USA).
DIN, 2013. Medical X-Ray Equipment up to 300 kV-Rules of Construction for Structural
First to fifth authors thanks to CONACyT (Mexico) for the scholarship Radiation Protection. DIN 6812 German Institute for Standardization.
granted to pursue their postgraduate degrees. Gauvin, R., Michaud, P., 2009. MC X-Ray, a new Monte Carlo program for quantitative X-
ray microanalysis of real materials. Microsc. Microanal. 15, 488–489. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1431927609092423.
References Gauvin, R., Lifshin, E., Demers, H., Horny, P., Campbell, H., 2006. Win X-ray: a new
Monte Carlo program that computes X-ray spectra obtained with a scanning electron
Alghamdi, A.A., Ma, A., Tzortzis, Spyrou, N.M., 2005. Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 115, microscopy. Microsc. Microanal. 12, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/
606–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nci268. S1431927606060089.

7
G.E. Campillo-Rivera et al. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 184 (2021) 109437

Goudsmit, S., Saunderson, J.L., 1940a. Multiple scattering of electrons. Phys. Rev. 57, Rodriguez-Ibarra, J.L., Hernandez-Adame, P.L., Vega-Carrillo, H.R., Rivera, T., 2016. X-
24–29. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.57.24. ray spectra and doses. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 117, 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Goudsmit, S., Saunderson, J.L., 1940b. Multiple scattering of electrons II. Phys. Rev. 58 apradiso.2016.04.001.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.58.36, 58-42. Rogers, D.W.O., 1984. Fluence to dose equivalent conversion factors calculated with
Holroyd, J., 2018. Measurement of scattered and transmitted x-rays from intra-oral and EGS3 for electrons from 100 keV to 20 GeV and photons from 11 keV to 20 GeV.
panoramic dental x-ray equipment. J. Radiol. Prot. 38, 793–806. https://doi.org/ Health Phys. 46, 891–914. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-198404000-00015.
10.1088/1361-6498/aabce3. Santos, J.C., Mariano, L., Tomal, A., Costa, P.R., 2016. Evaluation of conversion
ICRP, 1982. Protection against ionizing radiation from external sources used in medicine. coefficients relating air-kerma to H*(10) using primary and transmitted x-ray spectra
ICRP publication 33. Ann. ICRP 9. in the diagnostic radiology energy range. J. Radiol. Prot. 36, 117–132. https://doi.
ICRP, 1991. 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological org/10.1088/0952-4746/36/1/117.
protection. ICRP 60. Ann. ICRP 21, 32–49. Sechopoulos, I., Ali, E.S.M., Badal, A., Badano, A., Boone, J.M., Kyprianou, I.S.,
ICRP, 1996. Conversion coefficients for use in radiological protection against external Mainegra-Hing, E., McMillan, K.L., McNitt-Gray, M.F., Rogers, D.W.O., Samei, E.,
radiation. ICRP 74. Ann. ICRP 26, 159–179. Turner, A.C., 2015. Monte Carlo reference data sets for imaging research: executive
ICRP, 2010. Conversion coefficient for Radiological protection quantities for external summary of the report of AAPM Research Committee Task Group 195. Med. Phys.
radiation exposures. ICRP 116. Ann. ICRP 40. 42, 5679–5691. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4928676.
ICRU, 1998. Conversion coefficients for use in Radiological Protection against external Sechopoulos, I., Rogers, D.W.O., Bazalova-Carter, M., Bloch, W.E., Heath, E.C., McNitt-
radiation. ICRU 57. J. ICRU 29. Gray, M.F., Sempau, J., Williamson, J.F., 2018. RECORDS: improved reporting of
Katoh, Y., Mita, S., Fukushi, M., Nyui, Y., Abe, S., Kimura, J., 2011. Calculation of air- Monte Carlo RaDiation transport studies: report of the AAPM research committee
kerma rate of diagnostic X-ray generators. Radiol. Phys. Technol. 4, 1–6. https://doi. task group 268. Med. Phys. 45, e1–e5. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12702.
org/10.1007/s12194-010-0097-7. Seibert, J.A., 2004. X-ray imaging physics for Nuclear Medicine technologists. Part 1:
Lopez-Gonzales, A.H., Santos, J.C., Mariano, L., Tomal, A., Costa, P.R., 2016. Evaluation basic principles of X-ray production. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 32, 139–147.
of mean conversion coefficients from air-kerma to H*(10) using secondary and Seibert, J.A., Boone, J.M., 2005. X-ray imaging physics for Nuclear Medicine
transmitted x-ray spectra in the diagnostic radiology energy range. J. Radiol. Prot. technologists. Part 2: X-ray interactions and image formation. J. Nucl. Med. Technol.
36, 842–857. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/36/4/842. 33, 3–18.
NCRP, 1993. Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. NCRP Report No. 116. Shafahi, Z., Sina, S., Faghihi, R., 2020. Comparison of TSVD, MTSVD, and Tiknonov
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD. unfolding methods for reconstruction of X-ray spectra. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 166,
NCRP, 2003. Radiation Protection in Dentistry. NCRP Report No. 145. National Council 108437 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2019.108437.
on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD. Smith, D.S., Stabin, M.G., 2012. Exposure rate constants and lead shielding values for
NCRP, 2004. Structural Shielding Design for Medical X Ray Imaging Facilities. NCRP over 1,100 radionuclides. Health Phys. 102, 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1097/
Report No. 147. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, HP.0b013e318235153a.
Bethesda, MD. Teles, P., Trincao, M., Alves, F., Antunres, V., Calado, D., Cantinho, G., Carvalho, A.L.,
Ninkovic, M.M., Raicevic, J.J., Adrovic, F., 2005. Air kerma rate constants for gamma Domingues, A., Geao, A., Godinho, F., Isidoro, J., Lanca, I., Líbano, L., Loureiro, M.
emitters used most often in practice. Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 115 (1–4), 247–250. F., Macedo, R., Moreira, R., Neves, D., Pereira, E., Pimenta Marinho, A., Pintao, S.,
https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nci131. Robalo, J., Santos, J., Santos, J.A.M., Silva, M., Silveira, J., Simaozinho, P.,
NOM, 2006. Norma oficial mexicana NOM-229-SSA1-2002. http://www.economia-no Teixeira, S., Vale, J., Vaz, A.F., Vaz, P., 2020. Evaluation of the Portuguese
ms.gob.mx/normas/noms/2006/229ssa1.pdf. population exposure to ionizing radiation due to x-ray and nuclear medicine
Okunade, A.A., 2005. Effective dose as a limiting quantity for the evaluation of primary procedures from 2013 to 2017. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 172, 108762. https://doi.org/
barriers for diagnostic X-ray facilities. Health Phys. 89, S100–S116. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2020.108762, 2020.
10.1097/00004032-200511005-00011. Ungar, L.M., Truby, D.K., 1982. Specific Gamma Ray Dose Constants for Nuclides
Omar, A., Andreo, P., Poludniowski, G., 2020a. A model for the energy and angular Important to Dosimetry and Radiological Assessment. Report No. ORNL/RSIC- 45/
distribution of x rays emitted from an x-ray tube. Part I. Bremsstrahlung production. R1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN, USA.
Med. Phys. 47, 4763–4774. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14359. Vazquez-Bañuelos, J., Campillo-Rivera, G.E., Garcia-Duran, A., Reyes Rivera, E., Vasquez
Omar, A., Andreo, P., Poludniowski, G., 2020b. A model for the energy and angular Arteaga, M., Baltazar Raigosa, A., Vega-Carrillo, H.R., 2019. Doses in eye lens,
distribution of x rays emitted from an x-ray tube. Part II. Validation of x-ray spectra thyroid, and gondas, due to scattered radiation, during a CT radiodiagnosis study.
from 20 to 200 kV. Med. Phys. 47, 4005–4019. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14360. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 147, 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2019.02.012.
Omori, Y., Hosoda, M., Takahashi, F., Sanada, T., Hirao, S., Ono, K., Furukawa, M., 2020. Wasserman, H., Groenwald, W., 1988. Air kerma rate constants for radionuclides. Eur. J.
Japanese population dose from natural radiation. J. Radiol. Prot. 40, R99–R140. Nucl. Med. 14, 569–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00286779.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ab73b1. Webster, E.W., 1995. X rays in diagnostic radiology. Health Phys. 69, 610–635. https://
Pibida, L., Minniti, R., Lucas, L., Seltzer, S.M., 2008. The Air-Kerma rate constants: doi.org/10.1097/00004032-199511000-00001.
application to air-kerma measurements for homeland security. Health Phys. 94, White, M.C., 2012. Further Notes on MCPLIB03/04 and New MCPLIB63/84 Compton
126–133. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000285799.20091.d8. Broadening Data for All Versions of MCNP5. Technical Report LA-UR-12-00018. Los
Poludniowski, G.G., 2007. Calculation of x-ray spectra emerging from an x-ray tube. Part Alamos National Laboratory.
II. X-ray production and filtration in x-ray targets. Med. Phys. 34, 2175–2186. Willemink, M.J., Koszek, W.A., Hardell, C., Wu, J., Fleischmann, D., Harvey, H., Folio, L.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2734726. R., Summers, R.M., Rubin, D.L., Lungren, M.P., 2020. Preparing medical imaging
Poludniowski, G., Landry, G., DeBlois, F., Evans, P.M., Verhaegen, F., 2009. SpeakCalc: a data for machine learning. Radiology 295, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1148/
program to calculate photon spectra from tungsten anode x-ray tubes. Phys. Med. radiol.2020192224.
Biol. 54, N433–N438. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/19/N01. X-5 Monte Carlo Team, 2003. MCNP-A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code,
Version 5. LA-UR-03-1987. Los Alamos National Laboratory.