
ORIGINAL ARTICLE 



Year : 2007  Volume
: 32
 Issue : 3  Page : 124132 

Parameters and computer software for the evaluation of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for body tissues and substitutes
Akintunde A Okunade
Department of Physics, Obafemi Awolowo University 220005, ILEIFE Osun State, Nigeria
Date of Submission  13Jun2007 
Date of Acceptance  19Jun2007 
Correspondence Address: Akintunde A Okunade Department of Physics, Obafemi Awolowo University 220005, ILEIFE Osun State Nigeria
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  Check 
DOI: 10.4103/09716203.35725
Abstract   
The mass attenuation and energyabsorption coefficients (radiation interaction data), which are widely used in the shielding and dosimetry of Xrays used for medical diagnostic and orthovoltage therapeutic procedures, are strongly dependent on the energy of photons, elements and percentage by weight of elements in body tissues and substitutes. Significant disparities exist in the values of percentage by weight of elements reported in literature for body tissues and substitutes for individuals of different ages, genders and states of health. Often, interested parties are in need of these radiation interaction data for body tissues or substitutes with percentage by weight of elements and intermediate energies that are not tabulated in literature. To provide for the use of more precise values of these radiation interaction data, parameters and computer programs, MUA_T and MUEN_T are presented for the computation of mass attenuation and energyabsorption coefficients for body tissues and substitutes of arbitrary percentagebyweight elemental composition and photon energy ranging between 1 keV (or kedge) and 400 keV. Results are presented, which show that the values of mass attenuation and energyabsorption coefficients obtained from computer programs are in good agreement with those reported in literature.
Keywords: Body tissues and substitutes, mass attenuation coefficient, mass energyabsorption coefficient
How to cite this article: Okunade AA. Parameters and computer software for the evaluation of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for body tissues and substitutes. J Med Phys 2007;32:12432 
How to cite this URL: Okunade AA. Parameters and computer software for the evaluation of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for body tissues and substitutes. J Med Phys [serial online] 2007 [cited 2022 Dec 5];32:12432. Available from: https://www.jmp.org.in/text.asp?2007/32/3/124/35725 
In the applications of Xray photons for medical diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, the quantity of Xray photons that are absorbed and transmitted after interaction within the human tissue and materials of biological interest can be theoretically evaluated by using linear (or mass) attenuation coefficients. The theoretical evaluation of the absorbed dose to human tissue from Xray photons can be carried out using mass energyabsorption coefficients.^{ [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]} Both the types of coefficients, which are widely used in shielding and dosimetric computation, are strongly dependent on the energy of photon, elements and the percentage by weight of the elements in the medium within which the photon interacts. As a result of the tremendous usefulness of these coefficients in the modeling of the transport and dosimetry of photons in biological and shielding materials, works resulting in extensive database over a period of decades have been published.^{ [7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16]} The parameterization of these interaction data has been reported to promote the ease of use in theoretical simulations of transport and dosimetry of photons in medical and biological applications. Several works on the parameterization of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients have been reported in literatures.^{ [17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33]} Parameterization studies such as those reported by some workers^{ [17],[18],[21],[22],[27],[29],[31],[32],[33]} are considered complex since they are based on physical quantities such as electron density and cross section per electron. Simple polynomial functions were used in other parameterization schemes reported for the evaluation of mass attenuation and energyabsorption coefficients.^{ [19],[20],[23],[24],[28],[30]} Some of these schemes were obtained by using older interaction data^{ [9],[10],[11],[14]} and do not cover the whole diagnostic and orthovoltage energy range. Some workers^{ [12],[13]} developed a computer program, XCOM, in FORTRAN language for the calculation of mass attenuation coefficients for any element, compound and mixture at energies ranging from 1 to 100 GeV. The computation of mass energyabsorption coefficients was not addressed in XCOM. The Windows version of XCOM called WinXCom has been reported.^{ [34]} Also, a computer program with acronym XMuDat^{ [35]} has been published for the computation of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for 290 elements, compounds and mixtures. This program limits the choice of the constituents (element, compound or mixture) in the absorber material to a maximum of six.
Specifically for optimal assessments of the use of Xrays for medical purposes, accurate and appropriate Xray photon interaction coefficients of various normal and diseased body tissues are required. In theoretical simulation exercises, researchers are often in need of radiationinteraction data for tissues or 'tissue substitutes' of elemental composition and weight percentages which differ from those reported in literature. More than six constituents are required for some of these tissues and substitutes. To meet the need for photon interaction data at lowenergy photons (1 keV or kedge  400 keV) for body tissues or substitutes of interest and arbitrary percentagebymass weighting of elemental composition, segmented multifits to the mathematical expression reported^{ [23]} for mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients of major and some trace elements in body tissues are presented.
Materials and Methods   
The leastsquare curve fits to values of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients were carried out using more recent data.^{ [13]} These interaction data are based on more recent calculations^{ [36]} and replace those earlier reported.^{ [11]} Fitted parameters were obtained for equations of the forms:^{ [23]}
parameters resulting in best fits, x = E/100keV and E is the Xray photon energy in keV
Data points between 1 (or kedge) and 400 keV were used. This energy range was divided into regions that result in good agreement with fitted data for 17 elements. These were hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, argon, potassium, calcium, calcium and iron. For the purpose of comparison, computations were carried out for
attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for the i^{} th element in the material and w_{ i} is the fraction by weight of the i^{} th element.
This rule is considered valid for photons in the energy range under consideration (1400 keV). For this energy range the values of the factor 'g,' which represents the average fraction of the kinetic energy of secondary charged particles, are relatively small.^{ [5]} Using the results of the multifits obtained from Eq. (1), computer programs MUA_T and MUEN_T were developed (using FORTRAN language) for the computation of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for body tissues and substitutes of arbitrary percentagebymass weighting of elemental composition. These computer programs are available for download via http://okunade.phpnet.us or on request vial email from the author.
Results   
The values of parameters resulting in best fits to Eq. (1) are shown in [Table  1],[Table  2]. Typical results of comparison of values of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients obtained from Eq. (1) and fitted values are shown on [Figure  1]. The results of comparison of values obtained for some selected body tissues by using Eqs. 13 and those tabulated in literatures are shown in [Figure  2]. The variations in values of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for some body tissues as a result of differences in age are shown in [Figure  3]. [Table  3] shows the values of elemental compositions for these selected body tissues.^{ [37]}
Discussion   
The maximum percentage differences between the values of mass attenuation and mass energy absorption coefficients obtained from Eq. (1) and those fitted are about 2.0% over a large range of energy of photons [Table  1],[Table  2]. [Figure  1],[Figure  2] show that the values of mass attenuation and massenergy absorption coefficients obtained from Eqs. 13 and those reported by Hubbell and Seltzer^{ [15]} are in good agreement. However, the values of mass attenuation and massenergy absorption coefficients differ as a result of difference in age [Figure  3]. This difference is attributable to the variations in fractionbymass of elements in the body tissue for different ages [Table  3]. For instance, for adipose tissue, the values of mass attenuation and massenergy absorption coefficients for newborns (in the energy range between 1 keV and 100 keV) differ by 8.0 and 9.0% respectively when compared with those for infants. These differences are 12.0 and 13.0% respectively when comparisons are made between newborns and children. For adults in comparison with newborns, these differences are 25.0 and 27.0% respectively [Figure  3]. [Figure  3] shows that the variations of the values of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients are remarkably high (maximum of up to 50%) for skeletoncortical bone for different ages in the energy of photons ranging between 1 keV and 100 keV.
The parameterization and the computer program developed in this work for the evaluation of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients are of tremendous usefulness in diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. Firstly, the development of 'body tissue'equivalent materials requires the matching of the attenuation and absorption characteristics with those of ideal tissue. Secondly, the absorbed doses in biological medium (or body tissue) and dosimeter are related by the ratios of the mass energyabsorption coefficients of Xrays in these media. It is desirable to have tissueequivalent materials formulated in such a way as to have the same/close elemental composition as the ideal. Producing an exact matching of body tissue and tissue substitutes with the same elemental composition seems practically unachievable. However, both tissue substitute and ideal body tissue are considered to be equivalent if they exhibit the same or close attenuation and absorption properties. Theoretically, this equivalence can be simulated by having the values of (µ/ρ)_{ substitute} /(µ/ρ)_{ tissue} and (µ_{ en} /ρ)_{ substitute} /(µ_{ en} /ρ)_{ tissue} equal to unity across a wide range of energy distribution of photons. In order to assist interested parties in developing substitutes for body tissues, tables of elemental composition by percentage weight, (µ/ρ)_{ substitute} /(µ/ρ)_{ tissue} , (µ_{ en} /ρ)_{ substitute} /(µ_{ en} /ρ)_{ tissue} and densities for some body tissues and 64 tissue substitutes over 33 energy points ranging between 0.01 and 100 MeV have been reported.^{ [38]}
The exact knowledge of the elements in an ideal body tissue and their percentage by weight is crucial for achieving optimum equivalence in the simulation of substitutes for body tissues. It is not a trivial phenomenon to know the exact percentage by weight of elements of body tissues. The percentage by weight of elements of body tissues varies with age, gender and state of health (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, ICRU Report 46, 1992).^{ [39]} The issue of the determination of the elemental compositions of body tissues and the percentage by weight of constituent elements has been addressed by several authors.^{ [18],[40],[41]} Largely, body tissues are known to be made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, sodium, chlorine, magnesium and iron. A recent review of the experimental methods for the evaluation of atomic, molecular and cellular composition of body tissues/organs has been published.^{ [42]} As a result of the differences in tissue samples and experimental techniques reported in widely consulted literatures, there are significant disparities in values of percentage of some elements reported by workers for the same tissue. In the report published by the ICRU,^{ [39]} it was noted that '. . . it is imperative that body tissue compositions are not given the standing of physical constants and their expected variability is always taken into consideration . . .' Consequently, due to these uncertainties, this publication^{ [39]} reported sets of radiationinteraction data to illustrate the spread of elemental compositions for different ages, genders and states of health. [Figure  3] shows that there are significant variations in the values of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for the same tissue for individuals with different ages. Uncertainties in the composition of body tissue and radiationinteraction coefficients are sources of uncertainties or errors in the estimation of absorbed dose.^{ [39]} It is not practically possible to have all radiationinteraction data tabulated for different varieties of tissues for different ages, genders and states of health. The use of less precise values of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients or failure to apply appropriate correction factors could result in significant errors in the simulation of body tissues.
Conclusion
The parameterization and computer programs, MUA_T and MUEN_T, that are reported in this work provide for the evaluation of mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for a given body tissue or substitute of arbitrary percentagebyweight elemental composition. These can serve as technical tools in the optimization studies involving the formulation of phantoms for body tissues in lowenergy diagnostic radiology and orthovoltage therapeutic applications. In terms of the optimization of speed and memory utilization, it is preferable to use mathematical expression rather than interpolation to obtain interaction data at desired intermediate energies that are not tabulated in literatures. Among the various interpolation techniques used
interpolation method is considered to produce more accurate results. However, this technique requires more computer memory storage and run time when compared with the use of functional expression. The functional expressions reported in this work can provide opportunity for reduction in data storage requirements and computation time, most especially in extensive computer programs requiring the
compounds and mixtures.
References   
1.  Weaver JB, Huddleston AL. Attenuation coefficients of body tissues using principalcomponent analysis. Med Phys 1985;12:405. [PUBMED] 
2.  Hubbell JH. Review of photon interaction cross section data in the medical and biological context. Phys Med Biol 1999;44:R122. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] 
3.  Ma CM, Seuntjens JP. Massenergy absorption coefficient and backscatter factor ratios for kilovoltage Xray beams. Phys Med Biol 1999;44:13143. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] 
4.  Ma CM, Coffey CW, DeWerd LA, Liu C, Nath R, Seltzer SM, et al . AAPM protocol for 40300 kV Xray beam dosimetry in radiotherapy and radiobiology. Med Phys 2001;28:86893. [PUBMED] 
5.  Jones AK, Hintenlang DE, Bolch WE. Tissueequivalent materials for construction of tomography phantoms in pediatric radiology. Med Phys 2003;30:207281. [PUBMED] 
6.  Hubbell JH. Review and history of photon cross section calculations. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:R24562. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] 
7.  Barkla CG, Sadler CA. Secondary Xrays and the atomic weight of nickel. Phil Mag 1907;14:101222. 
8.  Barkla CG, Sadler CA. The absorption of Rontgen rays. Phil Mag 1907;14:101222. 
9.  McMaster WH, Del Grande NK, Mallett JH, Hubbell JH. Compilation of Xray cross section," University of California, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory Report No. UCRL50174, Sec, II, Rev 1 (NTIS), 1969. 
10.  Storm EA, Israel HI. Photon crosssections from 1 keV to 100 MeV for elements Z=1 to Z=100. Nucl Data Table 1970;7:565681. 
11.  Hubbell JH. Photon mass attenuation and mass energyabsorption coefficients for H, C, N, O, Ar, and seven mixtures from 0.1 keV to 20 MeV. Radiat Res 1982;70:5881. 
12.  Berger MJ, Hubbell JH. XCOM: Photon Cross Section on a Personal Computer, Report No, NBSIR 873597. US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC; July 1987. 
13.  Berger MJ, Hubbell JH. XCOM: Photon Cross Section Database. Web Version 1.2. Available from: http://physics.nist.gov/xcom. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg: MD 20899, USA; August 1999. 
14.  Cullen DE, Chen MH, Hubbell JH, Perkins ST, Plechaty EF, Rathkopf JA, et al . Tables and graphs of photoninteraction cross sections from 10 eV to 100 GeV. Derived from the LLNL Evaluated Photon Data Library (EPDL), Z=150 (Part A) and Z=51100 (Part B), UCRL50400, Vol. 6 Part A and Part B, National Technical Information Service. US Department of Commerce: Springfield, VA; 1989. 
15.  Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM. Tables of Xray Mass Attenuation coefficients and mass energyabsorption coefficients from 1 keV to 20 MeV for Elements Z=192 and 48 Additional Substances of Dosimetric Interest, National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce: Gaithersburg, MD; 20899. 1995. 
16.  Boone JM, Chavez AE. Comparison of Xray cross sections for diagnostic and therapeutic medical physics. Med Phys 1996;23:19972005. [PUBMED] 
17.  McCulloug EC. Photon attenuation in computed tomography. Med Phys 1975;2:30720. 
18.  White DR. The formulation of tissue substitutes materials using basic interaction data. Phys Med Biol 1977;22:88999. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] 
19.  Loi TH, Remy M, Zeller C. A seiempirical law for the determination of mass absorption coefficients for xrays. J Phys Appl Phys 1977;10:71720. 
20.  Massaro E, Costa E, Salvati M. Semiempirical formulae for Xray absorption coefficients. Nucl Instrum Meth 1982;192:4235. 
21.  Hawkes DJ, Jackson DF. An accurate parameterization of the Xray attenuation coefficient. Phys Med Bil 1980;25:116771. 
22.  Jackson DF, Hawkes DJ. Xray attenuation coefficients of elements and mixtures. Phys Rep 1981;70:168233. 
23.  Tucker DM, Barnes GT, Chakraborty DP. Semiempirical model for generating tungsten target Xray spectra. Med Phys 1991;18:2118. [PUBMED] 
24.  Tucker DM, Barnes GT, Wu XZ. Molybdenum target Xray spectra: A semiempirical model. Med Phys 1991;18:4027. [PUBMED] 
25.  Ouellet RG, Schrener LJ. A parameterization of the mass attenuation coefficients for elements with Z=1 to Z=92 in the photon energy range from ~1 to 150 keV. Phys Med Biol 1991;36:98799. 
26.  Gauntt DM, Barnes GT. Xray tube potential, filtration and detector considerations in dualenergy chest radiography. Med Phys 1994;21:20318. [PUBMED] 
27.  Zaidi H. Comparative evaluation of photon crosssection libraries from materials of interest in PET Monte Carlo simulations. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2000;47:272235. 
28.  Massoumzadeh P, Rudin S, Bednarek DR. Filter material selection for region of interest radiologic imaging. Med Phys 1998;25:16171. [PUBMED] 
29.  Midgley SM. A parameterization scheme for the Xray linear attenuation coefficient and energy absorption coefficient. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:30725. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] 
30.  Assiamah M, Mavunda D, Nam TL, Keddy RJ. Segmented multifit of polynomial function for mass attenuation and energyabsorption coefficients values. Radiat Phys Chem 2003;67:16. 
31.  Kirby BJ, Davis JR, Grant JA, Morgan MJ. Extracting material parameters from Xray attenuation: A CT feasibility study using kilovoltage synchrotron Xrays incident upon low atomic number absorber. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:3389409. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] 
32.  Midgley SM. Materials for analysis using Xray linear attenuation coefficient measurements at four photon energies. Phys Med Biol 2005;5:413957. 
33.  Williamson JF, Li S, Devic S, Whitting BR, Lerma FA. On twoparameter models of photon cross section: Application to dualenergy CT imaging. Med Phys 2006;33:411529. 
34.  Gerward L, Guilbert N, Bjψrn K, Levring H. Xray absorption in matter. Reengineering XCOM. Radiat Phys Chem 2001;60:234. 
35.  Nowotny R. XMuDat: Photon attenuation data on PC. IAEANDS195. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. 1998. Available from: http://th www.mds.iaea.or.at /reports/mds195.htm. 
36.  Seltzer SM. Calculations of photon mass energytransfer and mass energyabsorption coefficients. Radiat Res 1993;136:14770. [PUBMED] 
37.  International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. ICRU Report Number 44: Bethesda, MD; 1989. 
38.  White DR. Tissue substitutes in experimental radiation physics. Med Phys 1978;5:46779. [PUBMED] 
39.  International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues. ICRU Report Number 46: Bethesda, MD; 1992. 
40.  Woodard HQ, White DR. The composition of body tissues. Br J Radiol 1986;59:120918. [PUBMED] 
41.  Sutcliffe JF. A review of in vivo experimental methods to determine the composition of human body. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:791833. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] 
42.  Mattsson S, Thomas BJ. Development of methods for body composition studies. Phys Med Biol 2006;44:R20328. 
[Figure  1], [Figure  2], [Figure  3]
[Table  1], [Table  2], [Table  3]
This article has been cited by  1 
Characteristics, as a shield against ionizing photons, of concrete blocks used in the construction industry 

 Christian Geovanni HernandezMurillo, Luis Alberto EscaleraVelasco, Hector Asael de LeonMartínez, Hector Rene VegaCarrillo, J. Rafael Molina Contreras, Dania Estefania Moreira del Rio, Daniel Jauregui Acevedo   Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 2022; 187: 110343   [Pubmed]  [DOI]   2 
The Effect of ZnO, MgO, TiO2, and Na2O Modifiers on the Physical, Optical, and Radiation Shielding Properties of a TeTaNb Glass System 

 Khalid I. Hussein, Mohammed S. Alqahtani, Khloud J. Alzahrani, Fawaz F. Alqahtani, Heba Y. Zahran, Ali M. Alshehri, Ibrahim. S. Yahia, Manuela. Reben, El Sayed Yousef   Materials. 2022; 15(5): 1844   [Pubmed]  [DOI]   3 
PyMLBUF: Development of an onlineplatform for gammaray shielding calculations and investigations 

 Kulwinder Singh Mann, Sukhmanjit Singh Mann   Annals of Nuclear Energy. 2021; 150: 107845   [Pubmed]  [DOI]   4 
EpiXS: A Windowsbased program for photon attenuation, dosimetry and shielding based on EPICS2017 (ENDF/BVIII) and EPDL97 (ENDF/BVI.8) 

 Frederick C. Hila, Alvie AsuncionAstronomo, Cheri Anne M. Dingle, Julius Federico M. Jecong, Abigaile Mia V. JavierHila, Mon Bryan Z. Gili, Charlotte V. Balderas, Girlie Eunice P. Lopez, Neil Raymund D. Guillermo, Alberto V. Amorsolo   Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2021; 182: 109331   [Pubmed]  [DOI]   5 
A simple spreadsheet program for calculating mass attenuation coefficients and shielding parameters based on EPICS2017 and EPDL97 photoatomic libraries 

 Frederick C. Hila, Alberto V. Amorsolo, Abigaile Mia V. JavierHila, Neil Raymund D. Guillermo   Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2020; 177: 109122   [Pubmed]  [DOI]   6 
Recommendations on selection of anode voltages in Xray testing of steel specimens 

 M. T. Sasanpur, E. I. Kosarina   Russian Journal of Nondestructive Testing. 2011; 47(5): 329   [VIEW]  [DOI]  





