## 11 Effect of BaO Modifier
From a practical point of view, the neutron activation of elements and the formation of point defects must be considered when choosing the best modifier and this can be evaluated experimentally, as some studies have reported [58; 59; 60]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Neutron Energy (keV)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Pure Glass**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Glass with BaO Modifier**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **1\%** & **5\%** & **10\%** & **15\%** & **20\%** \\ \cline{2-6}  & & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Removal Cross Section (mm\({}^{2}\)/g)**  
Figure 1: The effect of 1% of different modifiers on the photon mass attenuation coefficients of the studied glass. Figure 2: The effect of 20% of different modifiers on the photon mass attenuation coefficients of the studied glass. Figure 4: The effect of 20% of different modifiers on the neutron removal cross sections of the studied glass. Figure 3: The effect of 1% of different modifiers on the neutron removal cross sections of the studied glass. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Photon Mass Attenuation Coefficients Percentage**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Neutron Effective Removal Cross Section**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Difference**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Percentage Difference**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **1\%** & **5\%** & **10\%** & **15\%** & **20\%** & **1\%** & **5\%** & **10\%** & **15\%** & **20\%** \\ \hline
**Na\({}_{2}\)O modifier** & \(-0.41\%\) & \(-2.06\%\) & \(-4.13\%\) & \(-6.19\%\) & \(-8.25\%\) & \(0.40\%\) & \(1.83\%\) & \(3.17\%\) & \(4.90\%\) & \(6.46\%\) \\
**Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) modifier** & \(-0.41\%\) & \(-2.04\%\) & \(-4.09\%\) & \(-6.13\%\) & \(-8.17\%\) & \(0.37\%\) & \(1.36\%\) & \(2.28\%\) & \(3.71\%\) & \(4.95\%\) \\
**MgO modifier** & \(-0.39\%\) & \(-1.97\%\) & \(-3.94\%\) & \(-5.92\%\) & \(-7.89\%\) & \(0.56\%\) & \(2.58\%\) & \(5.15\%\) & \(7.78\%\) & \(10.43\%\) \\
**TiO\({}_{2}\) modifier** & \(-0.30\%\) & \(-1.52\%\) & \(-3.04\%\) & \(-4.56\%\) & \(-6.08\%\) & \(0.22\%\) & \(1.09\%\) & \(2.01\%\) & \(3.00\%\) & \(4.02\%\) \\
**SrO modifier** & \(0.21\%\) & \(0.90\%\) & \(1.79\%\) & \(2.69\%\) & \(3.59\%\) & \(-0.23\%\) & \(-1.07\%\) & \(-2.21\%\) & \(-3.41\%\) & \(-4.44\%\) \\
**Sb\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) modifier** & \(0.61\%\) & \(3.04\%\) & \(6.08\%\) & \(9.12\%\) & \(12.16\%\) & \(-0.61\%\) & \(-2.22\%\) & \(-4.63\%\) & \(-6.58\%\) & \(-8.74\%\) \\
**BaO modifier** & \(0.95\%\) & \(4.74\%\) & \(9.47\%\) & \(14.21\%\) & \(18.94\%\) & \(-0.49\%\) & \(-2.62\%\) & \(-5.38\%\) & \(-8.04\%\) & \(-10.71\%\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: Average percentage difference between the shielding abilities of the studies glass with different modifiers. Figure 5: Comparison between the effects of all investigated modifiers on the photon-shielding abilities of the studied glass. Figure 6: Comparison between the effects of all investigated modifiers on the neutron-shielding abilities of the studied glass. It is essential to choose the right modifiers to be added to anti-radiation glasses based on the required applications while taking into account the effects on the physical and chemical properties.