4.7 Article

Energy-dependent light quenching in CaWO4 crystals at mK temperatures

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 74, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2957-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG
  2. DFG Transregio 27: Neutrinos and Beyond
  3. Helmholtz Alliance for Astroparticle Physics
  4. Maier-Leibnitz-Laboratorium (Garching)
  5. BMBF [05A11WOC EURECA-XENON]
  6. SCOAP3 / License Version CC BY 4.0
  7. STFC [ST/H001026/2, ST/H001026/1, ST/K00137X/1, PP/D00005X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H001026/2, ST/H001026/1, ST/K00137X/1, PP/D00005X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scintillating CaWO4 single crystals are a promising multi-element target for rare-event searches and are currently used in the direct dark matter experiment CRESST (Cryogenic Rare Event Search with Superconducting Thermometers). The relative light output of different particle interactions in CaWO4 is quantified by quenching factors (QFs). These are essential for an active background discrimination and the identification of a possible signal induced by weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). We present the first precise measurements of the QFs of O, Ca and W at mK temperatures by irradiating a cryogenic detector with a fast neutron beam. A clear energy dependence of the QF of O and, less pronounced, of Ca was observed for the first time. Furthermore, in CRESST neutron-calibration data a variation of the QFs among different CaWO4 single crystals was found. For typical CRESST detectors the QFs in the region-of-interest (10-40 keV) are QF(O)(ROI) = (11.2 +/- 0.5) %, QF(Ca)(ROI) = (5.94 +/- 0.49)% andQF(W)(ROI) = (1.72 +/- 0.21) %. The latest CRESST data (run32) is reanalyzed using these fundamentally new results on light quenching in CaWO4 having moderate influence on the WIMP analysis. Their relevance for future CRESST runs and for the clarification of previously published results of direct dark matter experiments is emphasised.

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

4.7
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