4.8 Article

Extraction of the 235U and 239Pu Antineutrino Spectra at Daya Bay

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
Volume 123, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.111801

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China
  2. U.S. Department of Energy
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  6. Guangdong Provincial Government
  7. Shenzhen Municipal Government
  8. China General Nuclear Power Group
  9. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China
  10. Ministry of Education in Taiwan
  11. U.S. National Science Foundation
  12. Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic
  13. Charles University Research Centre UNCE
  14. Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia
  15. National Commission of Scientific and Technological Research of Chile

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This Letter reports the first extraction of individual antineutrino spectra from U-235 and Pu-239 fission and an improved measurement of the prompt energy spectrum of reactor antineutrinos at Daya Bay. The analysis uses 3.5 x 10(6) inverse beta-decay candidates in four near antineutrino detectors in 1958 days. The individual antineutrino spectra of the two dominant isotopes, U-235 and Pu-239, are extracted using the evolution of the prompt spectrum as a function of the isotope fission fractions. In the energy window of 4-6 MeV, a 7% (9%) excess of events is observed for the U-235 (Pu-239) spectrum compared with the normalized Huber-Mueller model prediction. The significance of discrepancy is 4.0 sigma for U-235 spectral shape compared with the Huber-Mueller model prediction. The shape of the measured inverse beta-decay prompt energy spectrum disagrees with the prediction of the Huber-Mueller model at 5.3 sigma. In the energy range of 4-6 MeV, a maximal local discrepancy of 6.3 sigma is observed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available