## 3 Results and Discussions
Figures 7 and 8 visualise the trend of change of the EBF and EABF values of the glasses versus the photon energy and Tables 3-10 presented G-P fitting coefficients, respectively. In the low energy range (0.015-0.1 MeV), it is seen that there are very sharp peaks around 0.02 MeV, 0.04 MeV, and 0.1 MeV, which are the L and K absorption edges of the Pb and Bi elements and the K shell absorption edge of La. The high Z values of the relevant elements increase the possibility of PEA interaction and cause the photons to become built up. The EBF and EABF values of LBi50 BEu glasses are considerably lower than those of LPb50 BEu glasses at lower energies. Since the \(Z_{\mathit{eff}}\) values of the glasses are very large, the EBF and EABF values for all glasses possess the smallest values (nearly zero) in the CS process proportional to Z. In the range of 1-15 MeV, since the PP interaction cross-section is dependent on Z\({}^{2}\), especially when the depth of penetration increases, photon build-up enhances with secondary scatterings. As a result, the EBF and EABF values for all glasses start to boost again at high energies. It is clear from Figures 7 and 8 that the EBFs of the glasses are higher than the EABFs. Figure 4: Variation of half-value layer (T\({}_{1/2}\)) against photon energy for **(a)** LPb50 BEu and **(b)** LBi50 BEu glasses. When all gamma-shielding parameters are evaluated together, the LBi50 BEu glasses show a superior performance compared to LPb50 BEu glasses in reducing photons. Besides, the protection capability of L(Pb/Bi)50 BEu glasses against uncharged (fast neutrons) and charged particles (alpha and protons) was also evaluated. For this purpose, the macroscopic removal cross-section (\(\Sigma_{R}\)) of glasses for fast neutrons was calculated firstly. Figure 5: Variation of mean free path (\(\lambda\)) against photon energy for LPb50 BEu and LBi50 BEu glasses, and some commercial shielding materials. Figure 6: Variation of effective atomic number (\(Z_{eff}\)) against photon energy for (**a**) LPb50 BEu and (**b**) LBi50 BEu glasses. Figure 1:0 Variation of exposure build-up factor (EBF) against photon energy for (**a**) LPb50 BEu and (**b**) LBi50 BEu glasses. Figure 1:1 Variation of energy absorption build-up factor (EABF) against photon energy for (**a**) LPb50 BEu and (**b**) LBi50 BEu glasses. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Energy** \\ **(MeV)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{Z_{eq}}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**G-P Fitting Parameters for EBF**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**G-P Fitting Parameters for EABF**} \\ \cline{3-13}  & & **a** & **b** & **c** & **d** & \(\mathbf{X_{k}}\)** & **a** & **b** & **c** & **d** & \(\mathbf{X_{  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Energy** \\ **(MeV)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{Z_{eq}}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**G-P Fitting Parameters for EBF**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**G-P Fitting Parameters for EABF**} \\ \cline{3-13}  & & **a** & **b** & **c** & **d** & \(\mathbf{  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Energy** **(MeV)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Zeq**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**G-P Fitting Parameters for EBF**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**G-P Fitting Parameters for EABF**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & & **a** & **b** & **c**  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Energy** \\ **(MeV)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{Z_{eq}}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**G-P Fitting Parameters for EBF**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**G-P Fitting Parameters for EABF**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & & **a** & **b** & **c** & **d** & \(  
In Figure 9, \(\Sigma_{R}\) values of both groups of glasses are established. In both glass systems, the \(\Sigma_{R}\) values decreased as the density decreased with the addition of Eu\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\).