4.6 Article

Optical, luminescence and scintillation characteristics of non-stoichiometric LuAG:Ce ceramics

期刊

JOURNAL OF LUMINESCENCE
卷 169, 期 -, 页码 72-77

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlumin.2015.08.034

关键词

Non-stoichimetric LuAG:Ce ceramics; Radioluminescence; Scintillation response; Anti-site defects

类别

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. National Science Foundation of China [U1332202, 61475175, 51172262]
  3. Research Program of Shanghai Sciences and Technology Commission Foundation [13JC1405800, 12ZR1451900]
  4. Czech Science Foundation [P204/12/0805]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-stoichiometric Lu3+xAl5O12:Ce (Lu(3+x)AG:Ce, x=1, 2, 3 and 4 %) ceramics were fabricated by solid state reaction method and further optimized by an air-annealing process. Absorption, luminescence spectra and scintillation characteristics such as light yield, scintillation decay times, energy resolution, proportionality and afterglow were measured and compared with those of the latest LuAG:Ce single crystal and stoichiometric LuAG:Ce,Mg ceramic samples. Thanks to the elimination of oxygen vacancies produced in the vacuum sintering process, air-annealing treatment led to a significant decrease of afterglow and a remarkable enhancement of radioluminescence intensity and light yield. The highest light yield was found in annealed 1% Lu3+ rich Lu(3+1%)AG:Ce ceramic, reaching 14,760 ph/MeV (1 mu s shaping time) and 22,400 ph/MeV (10 is shaping time). Scintillation decays of Lu(3+x)AG:Ce ceramics consist of both fast (decay time 65-73 ns) and slow (decay time 740-1116 ns) decay components where the relative intensity of the latter is higher (similar to 58%). A decreasing trend in scintillation efficiency was observed with increasing excess of Lu (with higher x values) in the samples. This can be explained by the existence of various electron traps due to Lu-Al antisite defect and structure disorder at the gain boundaries and interfaces. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据