Issue 
Radioprotection
Volume 54, Number 2, April–June 2019



Page(s)  133  140  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019006  
Published online  21 March 2019 
Article
Calculation of selfabsorption and coincidence summing correction factors for the extended sources using GEANT4
Department of Nuclear Science and Technology, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University,
Xi’an
710049, PR China
^{*} Corresponding author: hechaohui@xjtu.edu.cn
Received:
27
September
2018
Accepted:
12
February
2019
A detailed study of the full energy peak efficiency of a high purity germanium (HPGe) detector including the effect of source selfabsorption and coincidence summing was performed using Monte Carlo simulation, as it is difficult and timeconsuming to measure the full energy peak efficiency experimentally. Cylindrical water composition source was simulated with different characteristics, covering the energy range from 60 to 1836 keV. Selfabsorption correction factors (SAF_{cal}) were calculated for two source volumes and obtained good agreement with the experimental results except for (^{60}Co and ^{88}Y) nuclides. The simulation was performed for various samples with different densities and observed their effects on the full energy peak efficiency value of the detector. In the case of extended volumetric source, the coincidence summing correction factors (CSF_{cal}) for two nuclides (^{60}Co and ^{88}Y) were estimated with the GEANT4 simulation toolkit. The effect of correction factors on different cylindrical source volumes was also investigated. With the selfabsorption and coincidence summing effect, the best agreement was achieved between simulated and experimental results with discrepancy less than 2% for all of the radionuclides included in two source volumes.
Key words: GEANT4 / HPGe detector / full energy peak efficiency / selfabsorption / coincidence summing / cylindrical sources
© EDP Sciences 2019
1 Introduction
γray spectrometry with high purity germanium detectors (HPGe) is widely used for determining the concentration and identification of unknown radionuclides in environmental samples. To determine the activity of each radionuclide, it is necessary to calculate the full energy peak efficiency at the energy of γray emissions for a given measuring geometry. Most of the authors used different approaches and methods to calibrate HPGe detector efficiency (Helmer et al., 2004; Hurtado et al., 2004; Budjáš et al., 2009; Conti et al., 2013). But the major problem for HPGe detector efficiency calibration with environmental samples is the extended source dimension and selfabsorption of the source matrix. However, the extended source dimension is not a significant problem because the average path length traveled by a photon inside the source matrix but photon absorption within the sample itself is difficult to achieve. For this reason, several procedures were developed to determine selfabsorption correction factors. The most accurate method to determine the correction factor is the experimental method (Aguiar et al., 2006; Pilleyre et al., 2006; ElKhatib et al., 2014), where there is no need to make approximations. However, the experimental method is timeconsuming and it is difficult to measure the full energy peak efficiency curve with sample preparation of different densities. So, the determination of the full energy peak efficiency is difficult by experimentally for the extended sources. To overcome these difficulties, Monte Carlo (MC) methods were used. The importance of such MC methods is that they enable one to quickly calculate a new efficiency value for changes in the measuring conditions. Different theoretical and MC approaches were used to calculate the full energy peak efficiency value including the effect of source selfabsorption (Hardy et al., 2002; Vargas et al., 2002; Mostajaboddavati et al., 2006; Abbas, 2007; Khater and Ebaid, 2008; Badawi et al., 2012; Ababneh and Eyadeh, 2015). However, these methods required approximations and simplifications in the internal structure of the Ge crystal and sourcedetector geometries calculations (Shizuma et al., 2016).
In addition, when the source is positioned close to the detector, a coincidence summing effect arise in those nuclides which emit cascade γrays. Many authors observed some strong deviation from experimental results without including the effect of coincidence summing in the simulation (Rodenas et al., 2003; Conti et al., 2013). For the correction of such effect, the total efficiency is also required with the full energy peak efficiency. Debertin and Schötzig (1979) used the total efficiency (the ratio of the total number of counts observed to the number of photons emitted by the source) and calculated coincidence summing correction factor in measurements. Abbas et al. (2001) used the analytical approach to calculate the correction factor with total efficiency. Most of the authors used total efficiencies in the simulation for the calculation of coincidence summing correction factor (Wang et al., 2002; Vidmar et al., 2007; Ababneh and Eyadeh, 2015), and in recent years some authors used GEANT4 code and obtained good agreement with experimental results (Quintana and Montes, 2014; Giubrone et al., 2016). But these approaches required elaborate work in its implementation, especially for the close geometry measurements and large volume samples (Lee et al., 2008).
In this work, a simple and accurate method was developed in GEANT4 code to simulate the full energy peak efficiency (ε_{simu}) of a coaxial HPGe detector, including the selfabsorption (SAF_{cal}) and coincidence summing (CSF_{cal}) correction factor of the extended environmental source. Simulated results were compared to experimental measurement for a typical cylindrical measuring geometry with different volumes in the energy range 60–1836 keV.
2 Materials and methods
The MC code GEANT4 (Khan et al., 2018) can directly determine the energy deposited in the simulated volume of a detector, enabling the determination of ε_{simu}. The code provides a realistic and fast procedure for the accurate assessment of selfabsorption correction in samples without any optimizations and approximations. It can handle complex source geometries with any sample density and composition. The code follows the history of each individual primary photon until its energy dissipated in the detector and produces secondary particles as a result of the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, and pair production interaction. Only the γrays, which deposit their full energy in the active volume of the detector, were considered for the evaluation of the full energy peak efficiency. The secondary electrons formed by photon interaction processes were also taken into consideration in the simulation. G4EMStandardPhysics class was used for the lowlevel γrays spectrometry in the simulation since the energy limit for the electromagnetic process is 10 to 100 TeV. Therefore, Ge Xrays of energy below 10 keV cannot be processed. The number of total histories (10^{6} primary photons) was considered for the simulation to obtain a statistical uncertainty of no more than 0.1%. The ε_{simu} values were obtained by the VMware workstation 15.0.1 using i53570K 3.40 GHz Intel core processor. The GEANT4 calculation CPU times, for 12 ε_{simu} values, i.e. ε_{simu} values for 12 γray energies, were ∼0.2 s for point sources and ∼1 min for cylindrical sources.
The detector considered for MC simulation was a ptype coaxial HPGe detector (Canberra) with an active volume of approximately 18960.18 mm^{3} (detector crystal with a length (l) of 89.7 mm, radius (r) of 34.95 mm, a core cavity with a height (h) of 80 mm and a radius (r) of 10 mm). The detector geometry was a closedend coaxial and its relative efficiency at 1332 keV (^{60}Co) is 44.3%. The detector has an aluminum endcap window of thickness (w) of 1 mm, placed at a distance (d) of 4 mm from the crystal and a nominal deadlayer thickness (t) of 0.7 mm. A scheme of the detector is shown in Figure 1. No information was available by the manufacturer about whether the Ge crystals had rounded edges. Sharp edges of the crystals were assumed in the simulation. A cylindrical beaker source of radius (S = 34.8 mm) filled with γ radionuclides aqueous solution of volumes V1 (100 mL) and V2 (500 mL) were used to obtain the full energy peak efficiency values. The radionuclides contained in the source solution are (^{241}Am, ^{85}Sr, ^{137}Cs, ^{109}Cd, ^{114}Sn, ^{88}Y, ^{57}Co, ^{139}Ce, ^{60}Co, ^{203}Hg), covering the energy range from 60 to 1836 keV. The cylindrical beaker source was placed in contact with the detector endcap window. Besides the source selfabsorption, it is also necessary to consider the photon attenuation in the germanium deadlayer and entrance aluminum window. The thickness of the dead layer has a large influence on the detector efficiency, especially for low energy range, where the low energy photons are increasingly absorbed. Regarding the effect of aluminum material surrounding the detector, there is the probability of low energy photons attenuation in this region. In our model, the radiation enters only through the upper face of the crystal and therefore, the sidewall thickness has no influence on full energy peak efficiency value.
The simulated full energy peak efficiency () is obtained from: (1) where ε_{simu} is the full energy peak efficiency, Q is the number of events that deposit their full energy in the active detector volume, and M is the number of total simulated events for a given energy, E.
The calculated selfabsorption correction factor (SAF_{cal}) is obtained from: (2) where and ε_{simu} are the simulated efficiencies in the presence (water) and absence (vacuum) of the source attenuation, respectively.
In the absence of coincidence summing, the count rate (N_{1}) is given by: (3) where A is the source activity, γ_{1} is the emission probability with energy E_{1} and ε_{1} is the peak efficiency for γ_{1} with E_{1}.
If the energy of γ_{1} is totally absorbed, the sum count rate is observed at an energy between E_{1} and E_{l} + E_{2} and the event is lost from the full energy peak of γ_{1}. The observed full energy peak would become: (4) where is the count rate in the presence of coincidence summing, ε_{T2} is the total detection efficiency for γ_{2}. For a point source, the calculated coincidence summing correction factor (CSF_{cal}) for γ_{1} is given by: (5)or (6)
Similarly, for (7) (8) (9) or (10)where and are the calculated coincidence summing correction factors, and are the simulated total efficiencies of 1173 keV (a) and 1332 keV (b) respectively, similarly for ^{88}Y. is the ratio between the emission probabilities for each multi γray nuclide. Equations (6) and (10) show that the correction factors depend only on the total efficiencies and γ emission probabilities. The γray emission probability (γ) values are listed in Table 1.
The coincidence summing effects become more complicated for the extended volume source. In this case, the correction factor not only depends on the peak and total efficiencies but also on the source volume and the differential efficiency distributions within the source. For a volume source, equations (3) and (4) have to be rewritten in a differential forms: (11) (12)
ρ dρ is considered as a volume element, r denotes the position of ρ dρ, ε_{1}(r) and ε_{T2}(r) are the peak and total efficiencies at r, n_{1}(r) ρ dρ and represent N_{1} and respectively, but the γrays emitted from volume element ρ dρ at r in this case. a(r) is the activity concentration at r. Integration on both sides of equations (11) and (12) over the source volume, we obtain: (13) (14) (15)
Similarly, for (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) or (23)or (24)or, as a summation, equations (17) and (24) can be written as: (25) (26)where ρ_{i} is the point source positions from the detector axis in volume source. Equations (25) and (26) can be written as: (27)
For the whole volume source height, (29) where H_{i }are the different distances from the beaker bottom. Similarly, (30) (31) (32)where ⟨J_{1}⟩ and ⟨J_{2}⟩are the 10point integration of efficiencies for each nuclide. To calculate the coincidence summing correction for both source volumes, first, the beaker volume is divided into two volumes (H_{1} and H_{2}) and then further subdivided into 5 volume elements (ρ_{i}) for each (H_{1} and H_{2}). Four single nuclide point sources with photon energies (^{60}Co (1173 keV, 1332 keV) and ^{88}Y (898 keV, 1898 keV)) were placed at 10 positions within the source volume with two different distances (H_{1} and H_{2}) from the beaker bottom. To get for 898 or 1173 keV, first computed the and (1836 or 1332 keV) values at 5 different positions in the source volume and then computed the 5point integration (i.e., multiplied each value by ρ_{i}, summed them, and divided by the sum of the ρ_{i}). Similarly, calculated (5point integration of efficiencies) at height H_{2} and averaged them to get ⟨J_{1}⟩ at 10 volume elements. The and values does not change with the further subdivision of the beaker volume. Similarly, computed the and (898 or 1173 keV) values at 10 different positions to obtain ⟨J_{2}⟩ for 1836 or 1332 keV.
The true simulated full energy peak efficiency () is obtained from: (33)
Fig. 1 Schematic of the sourcedetector. 
Multi γray nuclides with emission probability.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Analysis of selfabsorption correction factor
The full energy peak efficiency was simulated for a cylindrical water composition source of density (ρ = 1 g/cm^{3}) with two different volumes. First, the simulated result was obtained without source selfabsorption of the source matrix (water) and there was no attenuation of a γray photon from the source matrix but attenuated from the source container material. As given in Tables 2 and 3, the ε_{simu} results without source selfabsorption are compared with the experimental full energy peak efficiency (ε_{Exp}) values. Obviously, the noninclusion of the source selfabsorption caused an increase in ε_{simu} values. For various source volumes, large deviations in values without source selfabsorption were observed with the experimental results. So to obtain the correct simulated results, the source selfabsorption must be taken into consideration. Tables 2 and 3 show the SAF_{cal} values for different source volumes. These tables clearly show the effect of the source selfabsorption on the ε_{simu} value, especially for the low photon energy. The SAF_{cal} value is somewhat great and it’s more effective for the low photon energy. The relative deviations (RD) are somewhat greater at high energies for both source volumes. Tables 2 and 3 show good agreement between simulated () and experimental (ε_{Exp}) results with RD less than 2% at low energies due to the inclusion of SAF_{cal}.
For the extended sources, different samples with different chemical composition and density caused significant variations in the full energy peak efficiency value. But for most environmental samples, the full energy peak efficiency with source selfabsorption greatly depends on the density of the samples. To observe the sample density effect on the full energy peak efficiency value, we simulated the full energy peak efficiency value for four samples with different density (0.8, 1, 1.5 and 1.9 g/cm^{3}). As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the comparison of the simulated results for various samples volumes, show the dependence of value on different sample density. The tables show that when the density of the sample increases the value decreases because the minimum number of γrays scattered in the samples itself at greater density.
Relative deviation between experimental and simulated () full energy peak efficiency values with selfabsorption correction factor for V1.
Relative deviation between experimental and simulated () full energy peak efficiency values with selfabsorption correction factor for V2.
Variation of the full energy peak efficiency value with density for V1.
Variation of the full energy peak efficiency value with density for V2.
3.2 Analysis of coincidence summing correction factor
For the energy range (60 to 662 keV), a good agreement was achieved with SAF_{cal}. However, for the high energy range (898 to 1836 keV), maximum discrepancies were obtained due to the noninclusion of coincidence summing effect in values. In the case of extended sources, the ε_{Tsimu} value needs to be taken into account to find CSF_{cal} for ^{60}Co and ^{88}Y. Table 6 shows the 10point integration of efficiency values obtained with GEANT4 for the extended volumetric sources.
The 10point integration of efficiency values obtained with our simulation approach is simple and precise to be used to calculate the coincidence summing correction factor. The values of the correction factor for ^{60}Co and ^{88}Y are shown in Table 7. The CSF_{cal} is independent of the detector count rate but it is strongly dependent on the full energy peak and total efficiency. By comparison, there is an inverse relationship between ⟨ J ⟩ and CSF_{cal} values for nuclides ^{60}Co and ^{88}Y. Results indicated that the CSF_{cal} also depends on the different source volume. Table 7 shows that the CSF_{cal} decreases with the source volume, which means that the probability of such summing effects decreases with increasing of the source to detector distance.
The true values were obtained by applying the CSF_{cal} in the simulation for nuclide ^{60}Co and ^{88}Y. Table 8 shows a good agreement with the experimental results, with discrepancies less than 2% for both extended volumetric sources.
Calculated 10point integration of efficiency values for different source volumes.
Calculated coincidence summing correction from 10point integration efficiency values.
Comparison of experimental and simulated full energy peak efficiency values with CSF_{cal}.
4 Conclusions
GEANT4 simulation toolkit was used to simulate the full energy peak efficiency of a coaxial HPGe detector for the extended volumetric sources. The selfabsorption correction factors were calculated and obtained accurate full energy peak efficiency values for the low energy range. The simulation was performed and observed the dependence of the full energy peak efficiency value on different sample densities. A new method was used in GEANT4 to calculate the coincidence summing correction factors and obtained accurate simulated results; the discrepancies between the experimental and simulated efficiencies were found less than 2%. The proposed simulated method avoids the preparation of the great variety of radioactive samples with several isotopes and has added the advantages to improve the detection efficiencies for the measurement of the activity of various samples.
Acknowledgments
This work at Xian Jiaotong University was fully supported by the Chinese government. The authors would like to thank the entire staff of the Nuclear Science and Technology department for the very valuable information in the completion of this work.
References
 Ababneh AM, Eyadeh MM. 2015. Coincidence summing corrections in HPGe gammaray spectrometry for Marinellibeakers geometry using peak to total (P/T) calibration. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 8: 323–327. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Abbas MI. 2007. Direct mathematical method for calculating fullenergy peak efficiency and coincidence corrections of HPGe detectors for extended sources. Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B 256: 554–557. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Abbas MI, Selim YS, Bassiouni M. 2001. HPGe detector photopeak efficiency calculation including selfabsorption and coincidence corrections for cylindrical sources using compact analytical expressions. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 61: 429–431. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Aguiar JC, Galiano E, Fernandez J. 2006. Peak efficiency calibration for attenuation corrected cylindrical sources in gamma ray spectrometry by the use of a point source. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 64: 1643–1647. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Badawi MS, Gouda MM, Nafee SS, ElKhatib AM, ElMallah EA. 2012. New analytical approach to calibrate the coaxial HPGe detectors including correction for source matrix selfattenuation. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 70: 2661–2668. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Budjáš D, Heisel M, Maneschg W, Simgen H. 2009. Optimisation of the MCmodel of a ptype Gespectrometer for the purpose of efficiency determination. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 67: 706–710. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Conti C, Salinas I, Zylberberg H. 2013. A detailed procedure to simulate an HPGe detector with MCNP5. Prog. Nucl. Energy 66: 35–40. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Debertin K, Schötzig U. 1979. Coincidence summing corrections in Ge (Li)spectrometry at low sourcetodetector distances. Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. 158: 471–477. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 ElKhatib AM, Thabet AA, Elzaher MA, Badawi MS, Salem BA. 2014. Study on the effect of the selfattenuation coefficient on γray detector efficiency calculated at low and high energy regions. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 46: 217–224. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Giubrone G, Ortiz J, Gallardo S, Martorell S, Bas M. 2016. Calculation of coincidence summing correction factors for an HPGe detector using GEANT4. J. Environ. Radioact. 158: 114–118. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hardy J, Iacob V, SanchezVega M, Effinger R, Lipnik P, Mayes V, Willis D, Helmer R. 2002. Precise efficiency calibration of an HPGe detector: Source measurements and Monte Carlo calculations with subpercent precision. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 56: 65–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Helmer R, Nica N, Hardy J, Iacob V. 2004. Precise efficiency calibration of an HPGe detector up to 3.5 MeV, with measurements and Monte Carlo calculations. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 60: 173–177. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hurtado S, GarcıaLeón M, GarcıaTenorio R. 2004. GEANT4 code for simulation of a germanium gammaray detector and its application to efficiency calibration. Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A 518: 764–774. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Khan W, Zhang Q, He C, Saleh M. 2018. Monte Carlo simulation of the full energy peak efficiency of an HPGe detector. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 131: 67–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Khater A, Ebaid Y. 2008. A simplified gammaray selfattenuation correction in bulk samples. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 66: 407–413. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Lee M, Park TS, Woo JK. 2008. Coincidence summing effects in gammaray spectrometry using a Marinelli beaker. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 66: 799–803. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Mostajaboddavati M, Hassanzadeh S, Faghihian H. 2006. Efficiency calibration and measurement of selfabsorption correction for environmental gammaspectroscopy of soil samples using Marinelli beaker. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 268: 539–544. [Google Scholar]
 Pilleyre T, Sanzelle S, Miallier D, Fain J, Courtine F. 2006. Theoretical and experimental estimation of selfattenuation corrections in determination of 210Pb by γspectrometry with well Ge detector. Radiat. Meas. 41: 323–329. [Google Scholar]
 Quintana B, Montes C. 2014. Summingcoincidence corrections with Geant4 in routine measurements by γ spectrometry of environmental samples. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 87: 390–393. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Rodenas J, Pascual A, Zarza I, Serradell V, Ortiz J, Ballesteros L. 2003. Analysis of the influence of germanium dead layer on detector calibration simulation for environmental radioactive samples using the Monte Carlo method. Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A 496: 390–399. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Shizuma K, Oba Y, Takada M. 2016. A practical method for determining γray fullenergy peak efficiency considering coincidencesumming and selfabsorption corrections for the measurement of environmental samples after the Fukushima reactor accident. Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B 383: 183–190. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Vargas MJ, Timón AF, Dı́az NC, Sánchez DP. 2002. Monte Carlo simulation of the selfabsorption corrections for natural samples in gammaray spectrometry. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 57: 893–898. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Vidmar T, Korun M, Vodenik B. 2007. A method for calculation of true coincidence summing correction factors for extended sources. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 65: 243–246. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Wang Z, Kahn B, Valentine JD. 2002. Efficiency calculation and coincidence summing correction for germanium detectors by Monte Carlo simulation. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 49: 1925–1931. [Google Scholar]
Cite this article as: Khan W, He C, Cao Y. 2019. Calculation of selfabsorption and coincidence summing correction factors for the extended sources using GEANT4. Radioprotection 54(2): 133–140
All Tables
Relative deviation between experimental and simulated () full energy peak efficiency values with selfabsorption correction factor for V1.
Relative deviation between experimental and simulated () full energy peak efficiency values with selfabsorption correction factor for V2.
Calculated 10point integration of efficiency values for different source volumes.
Calculated coincidence summing correction from 10point integration efficiency values.
Comparison of experimental and simulated full energy peak efficiency values with CSF_{cal}.
All Figures
Fig. 1 Schematic of the sourcedetector. 

In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.