4.6 Article

A comparative investigation of Ce3+/Dy3+ and Eu2+ doped LiAlO2 phosphors for high dose radiation dosimetry: Explanation of defect recombination mechanism using PL, TL and EPR study

Journal

JOURNAL OF LUMINESCENCE
Volume 188, Issue -, Pages 81-95

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlumin.2017.03.046

Keywords

Lithium aluminate; gamma- irradiation; Dosimetry; EPR

Categories

Funding

  1. Inter University Accelerator Center (IUAC) [UFR- 56301]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes a comparative analysis of 7-ray irradiated thermoluminescence properties of Ce3+/Dy3+ and Eu2+ doped LiAlO2 phosphor. LiAlO2: Ce3+/Dy3+/Eu2+ phosphors were synthesized by solution combustion method. The as synthesized phosphors were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for structural and morphological study. Rietveld Refinement of XRD patterns were executed by using Fullprof suit software program. Thermoluminescence characteristics of these phosphors show a linear dose response for a wide range of gamma radiation, especially Eu2+ doped LiAlO2 phosphor. The presence of large number of lithium vacancies in LiAlO2 phosphor was supposed to be responsible for TL characteristics. Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) study of un-doped and ce(3+)/Dy3+/Eu2+ doped LiAlO2 phosphor was carried out to confirm the presence of Eu2+ ion and cation, anion vacancies in the host lattice. The responsible defect recombination mechanism for observed TL peak in LiAlO2 was developed on the basis of TL and EPR study of irradiated and un-irradiated samples. TL kinetics was studied through glow curve deconvolution, Chen's peak shape method and initial rise method. A good match of kinetic parameters was observed between Chen's peak shape method and IR method. The present phosphors may find application in the dosimetry of high dose ionizing radiation. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available