Abstract
Numerous and diverse mathematical methods have been used to model the full-energy photopeak (FEP) efficiency-to-energy relationship. All of the methods attempt to approximate this relationship using numerical analysis methods. Sophistication of the mathematics does not guarantee a meaningful and accurate determination of the physical relationships being modeled. This discrepancy stems from the fact that the data being modeled may suffer from spectral and nuclear effects which alter the counts in the full energy photopeak resulting from absorption and attenuation in the active volume of the diode, in the intervening materials between the detector diode and source, within the source itself, and in the shielding around the detector and source. Data must be free of these effects either as a result of acquiring the spectral data in geometries which minimize or eliminate these effects, or by pre-treatment of the net area counts to correct for these effects. If these corrections are not possible, then the choice of mathematical fitting method should be constrained to provide results which are consistent with physical-theoretical considerations of the energy-efficiency relationship being modeled. If possible, the method chosen should also provide a meaningful estimate of the uncertainty associated with the approximation of this function.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
W. L. ZIJP, A. N. POOLE, H. J. NOTHENIUS, K. DEBERTIN, “International Comparison of Interpolation Procedures for the Efficiency of Germanium Gamma-ray Spectrometers”. Paper prepared for 5th ASTM-EURATOM Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry, Geesthacht, F. R. Germany, September 24–28, 1984.
L. A. McNELLES, J. L. CAMPBELL, Nucl. Instr. Methods, 109 (1973) 241.
H. H. HSU, M. C. LUCAS, J. M. MACK, C. E. MOSS, “A Semi-Empirical Method for Calculating Detector Efficiency as a Function of Distance”. Paper presented at IEEE/Nuclear Science Symposium, Orlando, FL, U.S.A., October 31–November 2, 1984.
L. MOENS, F. De CORTE, A. SIMONITS, L. XILEI, De WISPELAERE, J. De PONDER, J. HOSTE, J. Radioanal. Chem., 70 (1982).
L. MOENS, J. HOSTE, Int. J. Appl. Rad. Isotopes, 34 (1983) 1085.
L. MOENS, et al., Nucl. Instr. Methods, 187 (1981) 451.
J. PARKER, “The Use of Calibration Standards and the Correction for Sample Self-Attenuation in Gamma-Ray Nondestructive Assay”, LASL publication LA-10045, 1984.
B. M. COURSEY, D. D. HOPPES, F. J. SCHIMA, Nucl. Instr. Methods, 193 (1982) 1.
K. DEBERTIN, U. SCHOTZIG, Nucl. Instr. Methods, 158 (1979) 471.
R. SINGH, Nucl. Instr. Methods, 136 (1976) 543.
J. S. HANSEN, J. C. McGEORGE, R. W. FINK, Nucl. Instr. Methods, 122 (1973) 239.
A. EGAN, “Absolute Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis”. Ph. D. Theses, University of Surrey, England, 1976.
D. W. MARQUARDT, J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Mathematics, 11 (1963) 431.
K. LEVENBERG, Appl. Mathematics, 2 (1944) 164.
G. J. McCALLUM, G. E. COOTE, Nucl. Instr. Methods, 130 (1975) 189.
G. J. McCALLUM, G. E. COOTE, Instr. Methods, 124 (1975) 309.
J. S. HANSEN, et. al., “Accurate Efficiency Calibration and Properties of Semiconductor Detectors for Low-Energy Photons”, Vol. 106, pp. 365–379, 1973.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seymour, R.S., Andreaco, M.S. & Pierce, J. Evaluation of energy efficiency fitting functions for HPGe detectors. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Articles 123, 529–550 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02034914
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02034914