Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Oct 19.
Published in final edited form as: Phys Med Biol. 2017 Oct 19;62(21):8419–8440. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa8dea

Table 1.

Light collection efficiency and types of losses in the studied detector configurations. “Other losses” refer to photons being absorbed at reflectors, hitting the dead space of the photodetector array, escaping the geometry or being internally trapped. The two latter contributions are minor in all cases. For the monolithic detector and the pixelated array “Polish” and σα = 20° corresponds to the outer surfaces of the crystal block as well as the individual pixels. For the geometries containing optical barriers the outer crystal surface is polished in all cases and surface roughness specifications correspond to the barrier-crystal interface. The results are shown with light guide for the mechanical array and the all way barriers, and without for the other geometries. The uncertainties given in the “Counted” columns reflect the standard deviation in the number of counted photons over all gamma-ray events used to calculate the average light collection efficiency.

Polished
σα = 20°
Counted (%) Absorbed (%) Other (%) Counted (%) Absorbed (%) Other (%)
Monolithic 39.5 ± 0.8 48.5 12.0 71.6 ± 0.9 17.9 10.5
Mechanical array 35.5 ± 1.2 31.2 33.3 59.1 ± 7.1 13.0 27.9
OB all way, RI=1.0 42.5 ± 1.2 46.2 11.3 74.3 ± 2.6 14.0 11.7
OB all way, RI=1.4 45.2 ± 1.4 42.5 12.4 76.7 ± 1.2 11.4 11.9
OB 10 mm, RI=1.0 45.2 ± 1.2 43.3 11.5 73.6 ± 3.9 15.1 11.3
OB 10 mm, RI=1.4 46.3 ± 1.3 41.5 12.2 73.6 ± 4.2 15.0 11.5