the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Environmental Gamma Dose Rate Measurements using CZT Detectors
Abstract. The accurate and precise determination of the environmental dose rate is pivotal in every trapped-charge dating study. The environmental gamma-dose rate component can be determined from radionuclide concentrations using conversion factors or directly measured in situ with passive or active detectors. In-field measurements with an active detector are usually inexpensive and straightforward to achieve with adequate equipment and calibration. However, despite the rather widespread use of portable NaI or LaBr3 scintillator detectors, there is a lack of research on the performance and practicality of portable alternative detectors in dating studies, particularly in light of newer developments in the semi-conductor industry. Here, we present our experience with two small portable semi-conductor detectors housing Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CZT) crystals. Given their small volume and low power consumption, we argue they present attractive alternatives for gamma-dose rate measurements in dating studies. Despite high relative detection efficiency, their small volume may pose different challenges, resulting in impractical measurements in routine studies and, therefore need investigation. In our study, we simulated the particle interaction of the CZT crystal with GEANT4 in different sediment matrices to quantify the energy threshold in the spectrum above which the count/energy-count rate correlates with the environmental gamma dose-rate irrespective of the origin of the gamma-photons. We compared these findings with experimentally derived cumulative spectra and dose-rate calibration curves constructed from reference sites in France and Germany, which yielded unrealistically low threshold values likely due to the limited variability of the investigated sites. We additionally report negligible equipment background and required minimal measurement time of only 20 min in typical environments. Cross-checking our calibration on a homogenous loess deposit near Heidelberg confirmed the setting and assumed performance through a nearly identical gamma-dose rate of 1107 ± 65 µGy a−1 (CZT) to 1105 ±11 µGy a−1 (laboratory). The outcome of our study gives credit to our threshold definition. It validates the similarity of the two investigated probes, which may make it straightforward for other laboratories to implement the technique effortlessly. Finally, the implementation of CZT detectors has the potential to streamline fieldwork and enhance accuracy and precision of trapped-charge dating-based-chronologies.
- Preprint
(7382 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gchron-2024-31', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jan 2025
reply
The paper examines the CZT detector for gamma dose rate determination using two techniques: counts and energy integration. This dual approach is a significant strength. My impressions of those techniques are equivocal. A clearer distinction between these methods in the text and tables would improve the readability. Simplifying and refining these sections could make the content more accessible.
My other concern goes to the GEANT4 simulation, particularly its low-energy aspects. A more detailed discussion of the geometry, materials, and limitations would be beneficial.
Finally, I would advise to round values according to their uncertainty, there are generally accepted rules.
My additional remarks are as follows:L23: Asserting or assessing?
L42: Appeal?
L45: I would use “statistically agree” instead of “agree within uncertainties”. Usually expanded uncertainty is not used.
L79-82: Those sentences do not make sense when they are together.
L169-170: I agree that the dead time for environmental radioactivities should not influence the results. However, the sensitivity change with the energy might be a significant factor. Could you elaborate more why it can be neglected or what precisely you refer to when referring to sensitivity?
L213: “..(2019) .” please remove space
Figure 7. Please set y axis from 4 to 6 cps.
L281-284: Is there instability above what would be expected from Poisson distribution? If there is no such instability detected would not use term stable unstable words. They usually refer to phenomenon that arise from the detector system itself not from counting statistic.
L292-295: Cold you explain the reasoning behind this rule.
L297-305: I was wondering how accurate is the low energy part of the simulation. How well are mimicked detector enclosure, was the material and it thickness available? Is the detector response linear in tens of keV part?
L314: “We wil l later show”
L326: Fig. 8E - missing dot
L329: missing dot
L332: missing space “99keV”
L336: CZY?
L344: “... (see data on Zenodo: (Kreutzer et al., 2024)).” - missing ”)”
Fig. 2 - 11. Could you unify as much as reasonably possible the font size?
Fig. 2 - 11. Could you use it systematically: Title Case, Sentence case or lowercase.
Fig. 2. How big was the area taken for the MC simulation?
Fig. 8. On all subplots it now is difficult to assess what is on the left and right axis.
CaCO3 (subscript)
Fig. 11. The uncertainties might be somewhat misleading. From my understanding the error bars have the same component and therefore for other measurements I am wondering about the interpretation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-31-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sebastian Kreutzer, 03 Jan 2025
reply
We thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. We have revised our text accordingly and will upload a modified version of the manuscript, including the changes listed below.
Response to major comments
> My other concern goes to the GEANT4 simulation, particularly its low-energy aspects. A more detailed discussion of the geometry, materials, and limitations would be beneficial.
Generally, the GEANT4 simulation accounts for low-energy aspects, and the detector geometry is based on sketches provided to us by the manufacturer, including information regarding the materials. We provide the code used for the simulation on Zenodo to avoid any ambiguity. To accommodate the request for additional details in the main text,
we will include further information.> Finally, I would advise to round values according to their uncertainty, there are generally accepted rules.
Thank you for pointing this out. This comment likely refers to Table 2: We had decided to use the uncertainty of the HP-Ge detector as a benchmark and therefore we show two digits in the table consistently for all methods. However, for the final results, we will remove the digit as this number is indeed not meaningful given the precision of our approach.
> L169-170: I agree that the dead time for environmental radioactivities should not influence the results. However, the sensitivity change with the energy might be a significant factor. Could you elaborate more why it can be neglected or what precisely you refer to when referring to sensitivity?
This is indeed a valuable comment because our writing obviously caused misunderstandings. What we meant was not the simulation
but potential photon-energy related detection sensitivities of the detector system. Our GEANT4 modelling accounts for different
photon energies, but we wanted to indicate that there might be other effects we simply ignore. However, after an internal
discussion, we decided to rephrase this part of the manuscript because it sits on speculation on our part and invites misunderstandings.
The new phrase will read:"We did not consider dead times because we assume that this phenomenon has a low impact on
determining the count/energy threshold."> L297-305: I was wondering how accurate is the low energy part of the simulation.
> How well are mimicked detector enclosure, was the material and it thickness available?
> Is the detector response linear in tens of keV part?We wrote in the figure caption of Fig. 2, "Information kindly provided by the Kromek Group plc".
We will update the figure caption to include details that we had access to that information
(except for details of the electronic). Therefore, we believe that the simulations are fairly accurate.Response to minor comments
We will address all minor comments as suggested in a new version of our manuscript, below you will find
a record of the changes applied as documentation.> L23: Asserting or assessing?
Corrected to assessing; thank you!
> L42: Appeal?
We replaced this by "are indicated"
> L45: I would use “statistically agree” instead of “agree within uncertainties”. Usually expanded uncertainty is not used.
Done.
> L79-82: Those sentences do not make sense when they are together.
Indeed, thank you for pointing this out. We separated the sentences better.
> L213: “..(2019) .” please remove space
Done.
> Figure 7. Please set y axis from 4 to 6 cps.
Done.
> L281-284: Is there instability above what would be expected from Poisson distribution? If there is no such instability detected would not use term stable unstable words. They usually refer to phenomenon that arise from the detector system itself not from counting statistic.
Thank you for pointing this out. The effect is purely stochastic and not related to any instability of the measurement system. We will rephrase the sentence.
> L292-295: Cold you explain the reasoning behind this rule.
We will rephrase the sentence as follows to provide a better explanation:
"Our unpublished observations, employing the threshold method,
suggest that the threshold shifts towards higher energies for larger detectors
of the same material. This phenomenon is likely attributed to the increased
proportion number of photons registered from $^{40}$K, relatively to photons
from the U- and Th-series. To compensate for this larger contribution distribution of $^{40}$K
photons, the threshold shifts towards higher energies to and ensures that the
total count rate is proportional to the absorbed dose. Given the
small volume of our CZT detector, we would position the threshold in
the low-energy portion of the spectrum, not exceeding the values
reported in the literature."> L314: “We wil l later show”
Corrected, thank you.
> L326: Fig. 8E - missing dot
Corrected.
> L329: missing dot
Done.
> L332: missing space “99keV”
The line includes a half-space; which is correct (but indeed difficult to spot).
> L336: CZY?
Corrected.
> L344: “... (see data on Zenodo: (Kreutzer et al., 2024)).” - missing ”)”
Done.
> Fig. 2 - 11. Could you unify as much as reasonably possible the font size?
Thank you for pointing this out. However, all figures were already produced consistently "print ready" for a two-column layout.
In the single-column layout required by Copernicus for the manuscript, the used `\textwidth` command,
however, scales the figures differently. This will look better in the production process if the manuscript
becomes accepted. Still, depending on the final decision of the typesetter about the figure placement,
we may have to scale the fonts again.> Fig. 2 - 11. Could you use it systematically: Title Case, Sentence case or lowercase.
Thank you, we corrected the writing.
> Fig. 2. How big was the area taken for the MC simulation?
The area is 2.65 m2, the volume 4.4 m3. We will add those information to the figure caption.
> Fig. 8. On all subplots it now is difficult to assess what is on the left and right axis.
Thank you, we will add arrows to each of the four figures to indicate the corresponding scale.
> CaCO3 (subscript)
We corrected the figure (not visible yet until we can upload a new manuscript version).
> Fig. 11. The uncertainties might be somewhat misleading. From my understanding the error bars have the same component and therefore for other measurements I am wondering about the interpretation.
The error components are governed by the calibration and will not become significantly smaller for other measurements unless additional sites are utilized for calibration purposes.
This section is indeed systematic, as it applies to all measurements, and the random component is negligible.
Our objective here was to demonstrate that we cover the anticipated dose rate range even for a non-ideal threshold.
In other words, even if the threshold was not estimated with the utmost precision, the results will be accurate within the uncertainties.
This is the inherent limitation of the method.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-31-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sebastian Kreutzer, 03 Jan 2025
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on gchron-2024-31', Martin Autzen, 13 Jan 2025
reply
The paper details a study of CZT detectors for in-situ gamma dose rate measurements which provides a good alternative to either NaI detectors or HPGe detectors in the lab. The paper is well written and the instrument is well presented. The authors have covered dual approaches: counts and energy integration which gives the paper extra strength.
I would like to see the section on Geant4 simulation expanded to include more details of the setup. Currently it is not clear if the detector is simulated to be at the center of the sediment matrix or at a distance of 160 cm. The dimensions of the sediment matrix is also not given. Figure 2 also appears to be in conflict with the description of the setup or maybe I am misinterpreting it. What production cut was used? 1 keV?
Minor comments:
L15: limited variability
L31: consider removing commas in "both, laboratory and field, measurements"
L60: Gamma spectrometers need an export license due to being dual use and cannot be brought into every country, consider adding to sentence.
L80-82: full stops could be replaced by commas to improve reading flow
L130: emitted/source instead of radiator?
L301: "despite of the origin of the y-rays of natural origin." Is the first origin where they originate in the matrix?
L336: CZT instead of CZY
L351: uncertatines of the already implemented analytical approach increases?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-31-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sebastian Kreutzer, 13 Jan 2025
reply
Dear Martin,Thank you very much for your positive feedback.> I would like to see the section on Geant4 simulation expanded to include more details of the setup. Currently it is not clear if the detector is simulated to be at the center of the> sediment matrix or at a distance of 160 cm. The dimensions of the sediment matrix is also not given.> Figure 2 also appears to be in conflict with the description of the setup or maybe I am misinterpreting it. What production cut was used? 1 keV?I agree with this comment, the information provided was too little, as also flagged by reviewer #1.The simulation code is included in the data provided alongside our manuscript, however,I acknowledge that this is not an entirely straightforward matter and can be done better and more reader friendly.Consequently, I believe that essential information should be integrated into the main text and it will be added.Besides, to answer the questions: The sediment box had dimensions of (1.635 × 1.635 × 1.67) m, which, when combinedwith the dimensions of the detector (160 cm), resulted in a total volume of 160 cm3.Furthermore, the production cut was set to 0.5 keV. However, I will verify this information with Loïcbefore we re-submit the updated manuscript.> L15: limited variabilityThanks for spotting this!> L31: consider removing commas in "both, laboratory and field, measurements"Fixed and slightly rephrased to improve the reading.> L60: Gamma spectrometers need an export license due to being dual use and cannot be brought into every country, consider adding to sentence.Thanks, this is indeed an issue to consider and we will add it.> L80-82: full stops could be replaced by commas to improve reading flowWe will not change this for the moment, because in the production process step usually the copyeditor willadd a lot of language changes.> L130: emitted/source instead of radiator?Modified.> L301: "despite of the origin of the y-rays of natural origin." Is the first origin where they originate in the matrix?Thank you for spotting this; corrected.> L336: CZT instead of CZYCorrected.> L351: uncertatines of the already implemented analytical approach increases?Thanks, we rephrase this part.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/gchron-2024-31-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sebastian Kreutzer, 13 Jan 2025
reply
Data sets
Dataset: Environmental Gamma Dose Rate Measurements using CZT Detectors Sebastian Kreutzer et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13731838
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
145 | 50 | 8 | 203 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 145
- PDF: 50
- XML: 8
- Total: 203
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1