New approach to calculate the true-coincidence effect of HpGe detector

I. A. Alnour, H. Wagiran, N. Ibrahim, S. Hamzah, W. B. Siong, and M. S. Elias

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1704, 030005 (2016);

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4940074
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1704/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

True coincidence summing corrections for an extended energy range HPGe detector
AIP Conference Proceedings 1671, 030004 (2015); 10.1063/1.4927193

New approach for calibration the efficiency of HpGe detectors

AIP Conference Proceedings 1584, 38 (2015); 10.1063/1.4866101
New Approach To Calculate The True-coincidence Effect Of
HpGe Detector
I.A. Alnour1,a, H. Wagiran2, N. Ibrahim3, S. Hamzah4, W.B.Siong5, M. S. Elias4
1
Department of Physics, Faculty of Pure and Applied Science, International University of Africa,
12223 Khartoum, Sudan
2
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai,Johor, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Defence Science and Technology, National Defence University of Malaysia,
Kem Sungai Besi, 57000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
4
Malaysia Nuclear Agency (MNA), Bangi, 43000 Kajang, Selangor D.E., Malaysia.
5
Chemistry Department, Faculty of Resource Science & Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak,
94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia.
a
Corresponding author: aaibrahim3@live.utm.my; ibrahim.elnour@yahoo.com

Abstract. The corrections for true-coincidence effects in HpGe detector are important, especially at low source-to-
detector distances. This work established an approach to calculate the true-coincidence effects experimentally for HpGe
detectors of type Canberra GC3018 and Ortec GEM25-76-XLB-C, which are in operation at neutron activation analysis
lab in Malaysian Nuclear Agency (NM). The correction for true-coincidence effects was performed close to detector at
distances 2 and 5 cm using 57Co, 60Co, 133Ba and 137Cs as standard point sources. The correction factors were ranged
between 0.93-1.10 at 2 cm and 0.97-1.00 at 5 cm for Canberra HpGe detector; whereas for Ortec HpGe detector ranged
between 0.92-1.13 and 0.95-100 at 2 and 5 cm respectively. The change in efficiency calibration curve of the detector at
2 and 5 cm after correction was found to be less than 1%. Moreover, the polynomial parameters functions were simulated
through a computer program, MATLAB in order to find an accurate fit to the experimental data points.

INTRODUCTION
This paper presents a simple method to calculate the true-coincidence effects of two HpGe detectors available at
Malaysian Nuclear Agency. A true-coincidence effect occurs when multi-gamma radionuclides are utilized by a
detector in gamma-ray spectrometry. At the same time, source of error also results within the resolving time of the
spectrometer, from the cascade of γ-rays emitted by radionuclides with complicated decay scheme. Correction
factors must be calculated from full energy peak. Areas under full energy peak depend on the geometry and reach a
high value for close source-to-detector geometries [1-5]. If the efficiency of the detector is determined as a function
of energy by means of a set of standard or multi-gamma sources, then true coincidence corrections needs to be
applied[1]. No corrections have to be applied if a sample is measured relative to a standard of the same radionuclide.
However,
The true coincident effect is independent of the γ-ray activity of the sample measured and is proportional to the
detector’s efficiency of each γ-ray in coincidence. Corrections for coincident gamma are necessary for close source-
detector distance. In this work, correction of true coincident effect was made using the method proposed by
Montgomery [2]. The correction factor Cc is the multiplicative factor to convert measured gamma-ray efficiency
with summing effects on efficiency. The coincidence summing correction factor can be estimated from the
following equation:

Advancing Nuclear Science and Engineering for Sustainable Nuclear Energy Infrastructure
AIP Conf. Proc. 1704, 030005-1–030005-8; doi: 10.1063/1.4940074
© 2016 AIP Publishing LLC 978-0-7354-1351-1/$30.00

030005-1
 1
Cc i j
(1)
1  ¦ fi .H t  i 
i 1

where fi is the fraction of coincidence photons of energy i in coincidence with gamma ray of interest and εt(i) is the
total efficiency of the coincidence photon of energy i.

METHODOLOGY

Experimental Set Up for HpGe Detectors

The γ-spectrometry measurements were implemented with two a coaxial HpGe detector coupled with Canberra
GC3018 and Ortec GEM25-76-XLB-C with crystal length at 41 mm and 50.4, diameter 62 mm and 58.7, relative
efficiency 30% and 31% respectively. Both detectors have energy resolution (FWHM) of 1.8 keV for 1.33 MeV γ-
energy of 60Co. In addition, both detectors have high peak-to-Compton ratios of 58:1 and 59:1, respectively, which
are expressed as the ratio of maximum counts in the peak channel to the average number of counts in the Compton
plateau region. The detectors and pre-amplifier were placed inside the lead shield to reduce the background
scattering, and cooled by liquid nitrogen to reduce leakage current detector caused by thermal noise. The integrated
signal processor consists of a pulse height analysis system to transform pulses, which are finally collected by a
computer based multi-channel analyzer (MCA), and analysis performed with Genie 2000 software of Canberra and
Gamma Vision of Ortec.
Six standard gamma point sources with 9 different energies ranged from 59.5 to 1333 keV were measured under
identical geometry close to detector at distances 2 cm and 5 cm. The counting time was 2000 s in order to minimize
the statistical counting error [6]. The types of sources and data used in the experimental work are presented in Table
1.

TABLE 1. Activity and information on radioactive gamma source.

Sources Energy Half Life (s) Branching ratio Total Unc. Activity (Bq)
(keV) (%) (%)
214
Am 59.5 1.37E+10 36.00 3.0 37.26E+03
57
Co 122.1 2.35E+07 85.60 3.0 38.92E+03
136.5 2.35E+07 10.68 3.0 38.92E+03
133
Ba 302.9 3.34E+08 18.30 3.1 381.8E+03a
356.0 3.34E+08 61.90 3.1 381.8E+03
152
Eu 344.3 4.26E+08 26.60 3.0 366.8E+03b
137
Cs 661.7 9.51E+08 85.10 3.1 358.1E+02a
60
Co 1173 1.66E+08 99.86 3.0 38.70E+03
1333 1.66E+08 99.98 3.0 38.70E+03
Original activities of 214Am, 57Co and 60Co were measured on 01-03-2011
a
Original activities of 133Ba and 137Cs were measured on 01-04-2003
b
Original activities of 152Eu was measured on 01-09-2003

Method of Analysis
For a gamma emitted from standard gamma point source with known original activity and manufacture date, the
current activity is given by the equation below:

A A0 eOt (2)

where A is the activity present after time (t) has passed, A0 is the initial activity of the source, λ is decay constant and
t is time.

030005-2
 The gamma spectra were analyzed, and net areas under the gamma peaks (total counting) for each one of the
gamma energies considered were determined. The efficiency was calculated according to the following equation:

N
H (3)
AUt

where N is a net peak area, A is the activity (Bq), ρ is the absolute γ-ray emission probability and t is the elapsed
time.
The efficiency calibration curve was fitted to a polynomial function in order to obtain the most accurate values
using the following equation:

P1  P2 ln  E   P3 ln  E   P4 ln  E   P5 ln  E 
2 3 4

H E (4)
E

where P1, P2….P5 are the fitted parameters of the function, ε (E) is the full energy peak efficiency and E is the
energy of gamma source.
A simple program was written in MATLAB to determine the polynomial fitting parameters P1, P2 …... P5, for
each gamma point source according to Eq. (4)

Method Used to Determine the Coincidence Correction

x The efficiency measured was obtained from experimental data of standard gamma point sources according
to Equation (3), and efficiency calibration curve was obtained by plotting gamma energy versus measured
efficiency.
x The efficiency data was used to generate calibration curve based on the poly fit equation and determine the
fitting parameters (P1-P5). The line of fitting equation is considered as free from coincidence (non-
coincidence effect)
x The theoretical (calculated) efficiency was calculated from fitting equation.
x Any gamma energy consistent with the poly fit line (i.e. theoretical efficiency) is considered to be free from
summing effect.
x The deviation between measured fitting (poly fit) and theoretical efficiency is considered to be the
experimental efficiency.
x The coincidence summing correction factor is calculated as the ratio between efficiency measured from fit
(fitting efficiency) equation to measured efficiency:
x
H  fitted 
Cc (5)
H  measured 

x The corrected coincidence effect was calculated by multiplying the correction factor to experimental
efficiency.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Efficiency Calibration Curve at a Close Source-to-detector Distance

The efficiency values of HpGe in Canberra detector at close source-to-detector distances of 5 cm and 2 cm are
presented in Table 2, and the efficiency calibration curves for 5 cm and 2 cm are shown in Figures 1 and 2
respectively. The values of measured efficiency of 57Co, 60Co and 137Cs at this source-to–detector distance showed
deviation from calculated efficiency values. A large deviation at 5 cm was 4%, whereas a larger deviation was 15%
at 2 cm.

030005-3
 TABLE 2. The results of standard gamma sources efficiency at the distances of 5 and 2 cm from Canberra detector.
Source Energy 5 cm 2 cm
(keV) Measured Calculate σ (%) measured calculate σ(%)
214
Am 59.5 0.0148 0.0148 0.00 0.0392 0.0391 ‒ 0.26
57
Co 122.1 0.0214 0.0217 1.40 0.0531 0.0572 7.72
136.5 0.0210 0.0206 ‒1.90 0.0596 0.0545 ‒8.56
133
Ba 302.9 0.0123 0.0121 ‒1.63 0.0301 0.0302 0.33
356.0 0.0108 0.0108 0.00 0.0265 0.0261 ‒1.51
152
Eu 344.3 0.0107 0.0111 3.74 0.0260 0.0269 3.46
137
Cs 661.7 0.0071 0.0068 ‒ 4.23 0.0177 0.0151 ˗14.69
60
Co 1173 0.0043 0.0043 0.00 0.0104 0.0104 0.00
1333 0.0038 0.0039 2.63 0.0090 0.0099 10.00
σ = ((calculate-measured)/(calculate))х100

FIGURE 1. Efficiency calibration curve of Canberra HpGe detector at 5cm.

FIGURE 2. Efficiency calibration curve of Canberra HpGe detector at 2 cm.

Table 3 and Figures 3 and 4 present efficiency values and calibration curves for the HpGe Ortec at 5 and 2 cm
distances. The largest recorded deviations for 5 cm and 2 cm were 3% and 13% respectively. Therefore, the
efficiency calibration curve’s geometrics close to the detector require correction due to significant coincidence
effects.

030005-4
 TABLE 3. The results of standard gamma sources efficiency at the distances of 5 and 2 cm from Ortec detector
Source Energy 5 cm 2 cm
(keV) Measured Calculate σ (%) measured calculate σ (%)
214
Am 59.5 0.0070 0.0070 0.00 0.0117 0.0116 ‒ 0.85
57
Co 122.1 0.0155 0.0153 ‒1.29 0.0475 0.0529 11.37
136.5 0.0150 0.0153 2.00 0.0579 0.0512 ˗11.57
133
Ba 302.9 0.0116 0.0113 ‒2.59 0.0240 0.0253 5.42
356.0 0.0101 0.0102 0.99 0.0209 0.0206 ‒1.44
152
Eu 344.3 0.0103 0.0104 0.97 0.0195 0.0215 10.26
137
Cs 661.7 0.0064 0.0064 0.00 0.0128 0.0120 ‒ 6.25
60
Co 1173 0.0037 0.0038 2.70 0.0085 0.0086 1.18
1333 0.0033 0.0033 0.00 0.0080 0.0090 12.50

FIGURE 3. Efficiency calibration curve of Ortec HpGe detector at 5 cm.

FIGURE 4. Efficiency calibration curve of Ortec HpGe detector at 2 cm

The fitted parameters P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 at 2, and 5 cm were then obtained by using the MATLAB program.
These results are presented in Table 4.

030005-5
 TABLE 4. The fitting parameters of Canberra and Ortec HpGe-detector at 2, 5cm
Fitting Canberra Ortec
Parameters 2 cm 5 cm 2cm 5 cm
P1 ‒24.8059 60.9580 38.6990 0.3694
P2 ‒21.8273 ‒59.0924 ‒94.6881 ‒4.2903
P3 16.4315 19.8544 43.2838 1.6747
P4 ‒3.0432 ‒2.7675 ‒7.0736 ‒0.1695
P5 0.1789 0.1391 0.3908 0.0042

Correction for True-coincidence Effect

From Figures 1 to 4, at 5 cm and 2 cm the coincidence effects are clear. For this reason, correction of true
coincidence was made in the present study at 5 cm and 2 cm source-to-detector distances for both HpGe Canberra
and Ortec detectors.
Firstly, the efficiency of gamma energy free of coincident effect (i.e. calculated from equation of polynomial
function for particular gamma energy) is used with the measured efficiency to generate a correction factor by
applying Equation (5). Finally the experimental (calculated) efficiencies for coincident energies are multiplied by
the correction factor to obtain efficiencies corrected for coincident effects as shown in Table 5 and a new efficiency
curve is generated with corrected efficiencies as shown in Figures 5 to 8.

TABLE 5. The results of standard gamma sources efficiency at the distances of 2 and 5 cm from Canberra and Ortec detectors
after coincidence correction
Source Energy Efficiency
(keV)
Canberra Ortec
2 cm 5 cm 2 cm 5 cm
214
Am 59.5 0.0392 0.0148 0.0139 0.0070
57
Co 122.1 0.0540 0.0213 0.0498 0.0152
136.5 0.0559 0.0211 0.0529 0.0162
133
Ba 302.9 0.0312 0.0125 0.0268 0.0117
356.0 0.0258 0.0108 0.0206 0.0102
152
Eu 344.3 0.0269 0.0109 0.0219 0.0105
137
Cs 661.7 0.0157 0.0068 0.0105 0.0063
60
Co 1173 0.0105 0.0044 0.0080 0.0038
1333 0.0099 0.0039 0.0081 0.0034

FIGURE 5. Efficiency calibration curve of Canberra HpGe detector at 5 cm after coincidence correction

030005-6
FIGURE 6. Efficiency calibration curve of Canberra HpGe detector at 2 cm after coincidence correction

FIGURE 7. Efficiency calibration curve of Ortec HpGe detector at 5 cm after coincidence correction.

FIGURE 8. Efficiency calibration curve of Ortec HpGe detector at 2 cm after coincidence correction.

030005-7
 Table 6 shows the correction factor for coincidence effect at 2 cm and 5 cm for both HpGe detectors.

TABLE 6. Coincidence correction factor at the close-geometry.

Source Energy Canberra Ortec
(keV) 2cm 5cm 2cm 5cm
57
Co 122.1 1.030 0.965 0.916 0.999
136 0.931 1.020 1.030 0.947
133
Ba 302.9 1.030 1.020 1.060 0.998
356 0.975 0.991 0.988 1.000
60
Co 1173 1.000 1.020 1.000 1.000
1333 1.100 1.000 1.130 1.000

CONCLUSIONS
The dead time for computer and MCA was less than 1% for measurements taken to determine far source-detector
distance geometry, but it was greater than 10% for the close distance geometry. In general, and for both detectors,
total uncertainties associated with efficiency are approximately 3%, including source uncertainty as reported in the
certificate. The change in efficiency of the detector at 5cm and 2 cm after correction was found to be less than 1%.
This was not a significant variation in the concentration of the elements. Overall, both detectors used in this study
have very good resolution and sensitivity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM) for their funding. Special thanks to International University of Africa for support and providing
facilities. The financial support of this work was provided by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) under research
grant Vot. No.01E16. The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge Malaysian Nuclear Agency (NM) staff for their
cooperation.

REFERENCES
1. K. Debertin and U. Schötzig, Nucl Instr and Meth 158, 471-477 (1979).
2. D. M. Montgomery and G. A. Montgomery, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem 193, 71-79 (1995).
3. M. García-Talavera, J. P. Laedermann, M. Décombaz et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot 54, 769-776 (2001).
4. M. S. Dias, M. N. Takeda, M. F. Koskinas Appl. Radiat. Isot 56, 105-109 (2002).
5. S. Hurtado, R. Gracía-Tenorio, M. Gracía-León IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 56, 1531-1536 (2009).
6. I. A. Alnour, H. Wagiran, N. Ibrahim, S. Hamzah et al., “ New approach for calibration the efficiency of HpGe
detectors” in AIP conference proceedings 1584, (2014); doi: 10.1063/1.4866101

030005-8