Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Novel Silicon and GaAs Sensors for Compact Sampling Calorimeters

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports full-system tests showing that ultra-thin silicon and GaAs pad sensors with edge readout reach signal-to-noise ratios of 15 and 17 and are promising active layers for a compact sampling calorimeter.

desk verdict A solid, honest test-beam study of two pad-sensor technologies; the GaAs inter-pad signal loss is a real but clearly flagged limitation that makes the 'very promising' conclusion conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07431 v2 pith:5STNHRIE submitted 2025-01-13 physics.ins-det hep-ex

H.Abramowicz , M.Almanza Soto , Y.Benhammou , W.Daniluk , M.Elad , M.Firlej , T.Fiutowski , V.Ghenescu
show 16 more authors
G.Grzelak D.Horn S.Huang M.Idzik A.Irles J.Kotula A.Levy I.Levy W.Lohmann J.Morón A.T.Neagu D.Pietruch P.M.Potlog K.Świentek A.F.Żarnecki K.Zembaczyński
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-ex PACS 29.40.Vj29.40.Wk
keywords siliconpadsensorsGaAscompactelectromagneticcalorimeterFLAMEreadoutASICedgetracesKaptonfanouttest-beamcharacterizationinter-padsignalloss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is testing whether two ways of making very thin active sensor planes can be used inside a compact electromagnetic sampling calorimeter, where the gap between tungsten absorber plates must stay small to preserve a small Molière radius. It puts 500 µm silicon pad sensors, read out through copper traces on a Kapton foil glued to the pads, and 500 µm GaAs pad sensors, read out through aluminium traces embedded between pads, in a 5 GeV electron beam with a tracking telescope and the FLAME readout ASIC. It reports that single-electron signals are described well by a Landau distribution convoluted with a Gaussian, with signal-to-noise of 15 for Si and 17 for GaAs, and that pad-to-pad response varies by about 3% and 2%. The paper concludes that the two technologies are very promising for a highly compact and granular electromagnetic calorimeter, while noting that the up to 40% signal loss measured between GaAs pads needs calibration and a simulation study to quantify its effect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing elements are the two edge-readout schemes and the FLAME readout chain. In the silicon sensors, copper traces on a Kapton foil are attached to each pad with conductive glue, so the front-end ASICs can sit at the sensor edge instead of above the pads. In the GaAs sensors, 1 µm aluminium traces are embedded in the gaps between pads on a SiO2 passivation layer, routing signals to bond pads at the edge without any flexible printed circuit. FLAME, a 32-channel CMOS ASIC with a 10-bit ADC and a CR–RC shaper, amplifies and digitises the pad signals, and an FPGA applies a three-sample deconvolution to reconstruct pulse amplitudes. A beam telescope with six pixel planes gives the track impact point with about 37–40 µm uncertainty, which is what allows the response inside a pad and across the inter-pad gaps to be mapped. Together these parts make it possible to measure whether a sensor plane thinner than 1 mm can be read out without losing the signal or the shower position information.

What would settle it

A simulation of the full calorimeter that plugs in the measured inter-pad response gaps and shows that reconstructed shower energy or position resolution fails the design target would falsify the paper's 'very promising' claim for the GaAs sensors; equivalently, a dedicated measurement of the missing charge in the 0.5 mm gap as a function of beam position and bias voltage would show whether the loss is recoverable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that both sensor technologies can form the active layers of a compact calorimeter despite the unconventional routing of signals to the sensor edges. For the silicon sensors, no signal is lost in the inter-pad transition, the response is uniform to about 1% within a pad, and no cross-talk is observed. For the GaAs sensors, the embedded aluminium traces eliminate the need for a flexible fanout, but the wider dead gap between pads produces a response drop of up to 40% in one direction and 10% in the other, and a small fraction of the charge deposited under the traces is assigned to the wrong pads; the integrated size of those wrongly assigned signals is about $2\times10^{-4}$ of a pad signal. The paper's own summary states that with this qualification the technologies, read out via FLAME ASICs, are very promising for a highly compact and granular electromagnetic calorimeter.

Load-bearing premise

The positive conclusion for the GaAs sensors rests on the untested assumption that the measured loss of up to 40% of the signal between pads can be corrected in software or accepted without degrading the calorimeter's shower energy and position reconstruction beyond its requirements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A calorimeter built with these planes can keep the gap between tungsten plates near the minimum set by the absorber, preserving a small effective Molière radius.
  • The Si technology can provide a fine-grained active layer with no inter-pad dead region, so shower energy and position reconstruction need no correction for lost charge between pads.
  • The GaAs technology trades the Kapton fanout for on-substrate traces, at the price of a response dip between pads that must be calibrated and studied in simulation before the design is finalised.
  • The measured signal-to-noise values of 15 and 17 mean the sensors can see minimum-ionising particles with high efficiency, which is what is needed for in-calorimeter alignment and per-channel calibration.
  • The observed wrong-pad signal fraction of about $2\times10^{-4}$ for electrons hitting GaAs traces is small enough that it should not dominate the calorimeter response, although the paper does not yet provide an end-to-end shower simulation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the GaAs inter-pad loss cannot be reduced, a hybrid choice—Si planes where maximum uniformity is needed and GaAs planes where the more compact trace routing outweighs calibration effort—would be a natural design outcome, but this is my inference rather than the paper's conclusion.
  • The same edge-routing idea could be extended to sensors with many more pads or to thinner substrates, where wire-bond fanouts become mechanically impractical; the tests here establish that glued Kapton fanouts and embedded traces both work at the level required for a prototype.
  • A direct testable extension would be to measure the GaAs inter-pad signal loss as a function of bias voltage: the paper attributes the loss to the gap structure, and if it is mainly a charge-collection effect, higher bias might recover part of the missing signal.
  • The 2%–3% pad-to-pad response spread, measured with test-beam data, could be used to set production quality-control criteria for the sensor batch, since each pad's gain is separately correctable in the analysis chain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports test-beam measurements of 500-micrometer-thick silicon and GaAs pad sensors read out by FLAME ASICs, intended as active layers for a compact sampling calorimeter such as the LUXE ECAL. Using 5 GeV electrons and a pixel telescope, the authors measure single-pad signal distributions, signal-to-noise ratios (15 for Si, 17 for GaAs), intra-pad response uniformity, inter-pad signal losses, pad-to-pad response spreads, and signals induced by readout traces. They compare the measured distributions with a Geant4 simulation and conclude that both technologies are very promising for a highly compact and granular electromagnetic calorimeter.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a valuable system-level validation of two relatively new thin-sensor readout concepts: Kapton fanouts with conductive glue for Si and embedded aluminium traces for GaAs. The strengths are the direct telescope-based alignment, the use of a dedicated ASIC readout chain, the explicit characterization of inter-pad losses and trace-induced signals, and the fact that the measurements address quantities directly needed for the LUXE ECAL design. The main limitation is that the 'very promising' conclusion for GaAs rests on an unquantified calorimeter-level tolerance of a measured 40% inter-pad signal loss; the paper itself identifies the missing simulation study. This does not invalidate the direct experimental results, but it makes the central claim for GaAs conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [6.4] The central claim that GaAs sensors are 'very promising' for a compact calorimeter is not supported quantitatively. Section 6.4 reports a roughly 40% loss in the horizontal direction and 10% in the vertical direction in the summed MPV around the inter-pad gap, and the Summary states that this 'may jeopardize the shower energy and position reconstruction'; however, the paper does not provide the simulation study it calls for. Because the loss depends on the unknown impact point of each particle within a pad, it cannot be removed by a single per-pad calibration factor and will contribute both a bias and event-by-event fluctuations to reconstructed showers. Please add a calorimeter-level simulation or an analytic estimate quantifying the effect on energy and position resolution, or explicitly reduce the GaAs conclusion to a conditional statement.
  2. [6.2] The claim of 'very good modelling' of the data by Geant4 is weakened by the free multiplicative correction factor of 1.05 introduced to match the MPV. Since this factor is fitted to the data, it absorbs unknown systematic effects such as charge-collection efficiency, gain calibration, or inactive layers, and the agreement is not parameter-free. Please quote the uncertainty on this factor, give a physical justification for its magnitude, and propagate its uncertainty into the simulation comparisons.
  3. [6.3-6.4] Quantitative claims about intra-pad uniformity and inter-pad losses are presented without statistical uncertainties. Figures 19-22 show MPV values or MPV ratios as functions of position with no error bars; the statements 'variations of about 1%' for Si and 'about 40%' and 'about 10%' for GaAs need uncertainties derived from the Landau-Gauss fits and from the finite number of tracks per strip. Please add error bars, or a table of fit results with errors, to support these quantitative conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [2 (Fig. 4)] The caption of Fig. 4 refers to a 'SO2 passivation layer'; this should read 'SiO2'.
  2. [6.4] There is a duplicated word in 'in the vertical direction direction' in the description of the GaAs inter-pad loss.
  3. [6.6] The phrase 'compared the the distribution' in the discussion of Fig. 25 contains a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [6.6] The integrated wrong-assignment ratio of about 2e-4 assumes a flat beam intensity; please state how this estimate changes if the measured non-uniform beam profile is used instead.
  5. [3] The expansion 'FcaL Asic forMultiplane rEadout' should be typeset as 'FCAL ASIC for Multiplane Readout'.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract in the submission header and the abstract in the full text list slightly different topics (the header omits cross-talk and wrongly assigned signals); please make the two versions consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the only built-in agreement is the GEANT4 MPV scale factor in Sec. 6.2, while the GaAs inter-pad-loss concern is an unquantified risk, not a circular step.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.2 (Monte Carlo simulation)]
    "An additional correction factor is added as a free parameter in the fit in order to get agreement between the MPVs of the signal distribution in data and simulation. This factor amounts to 1.05. The distribution of the signal size, as measured in the test-beam, is compared to the results of the Geant4 simulation, after applying the readout model as described above, in Fig. 17. A very good modelling of the test-beam data is obtained."

    The free parameter is fitted precisely to the MPV of the same signal distribution that is then said to be "very good" modelled, so the agreement of the most probable value is enforced by construction. The comparison retains some independent content in the Landau-convoluted shape and width, and the fitted factor is not used to derive any of the paper's central sensor-performance numbers (SNR, pad homogeneity, inter-pad loss), which come directly from beam data. This is therefore a minor, non-load-bearing circularity rather than a defect in the main measurement.

full rationale

The paper is a test-beam measurement, not a derivation. Its principal results - signal-to-noise of 15 for Si and 17 for GaAs, intra-pad response variations near 1% for Si, and the 40%/10% inter-pad signal loss for GaAs - are direct measurements of ADC distributions as a function of telescope-predicted impact point, not outputs of a fitted model or of a self-citation chain. The only step that reduces to its own input is the Geant4 comparison in Sec. 6.2, where a scale factor is fitted to force MPV agreement; the resulting 'very good modelling' of the peak is not an independent prediction, but it does not feed the sensor conclusions. The alignment procedure uses pad signals to find pad edges via a Hough transform, which is self-referential in a weak sense, but the telescope provides an external coordinate measurement and the edge/efficiency findings are not forced by the alignment. The paper itself flags the GaAs inter-pad loss as a potential unresolved limitation ('may jeopardize the shower energy and position reconstruction in a calorimeter. A detailed simulation study should quantify the effect'), which is a missing support for the forward-looking 'very promising' conclusion, but it is a performance risk, not circularity. Overall, no load-bearing circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements are direct and do not rely on a derived theory. The main free parameter is the 1.05 correction factor that forces the simulation to match the data MPV, which slightly weakens the claim of 'very good modelling.' The other parameters are standard calibrations. The paper introduces no new particles or forces.

free parameters (3)
  • Monte Carlo normalization correction factor = 1.05
    Added as a free parameter in the Geant4 simulation to force agreement of the most probable signal amplitude between data and simulation (Section 6.2).
  • Gaussian noise smearing width for readout channels = Not quoted numerically; derived from fits to measured pedestals
    Used to smear simulated signals; the width is obtained by fitting pedestals measured in the test beam (Section 6.2). This is a fitted calibration parameter rather than an ad hoc factor, but it is still a parameter fit to data.
  • Strip width for intra-pad uniformity scans = 55 um (Si), 50 um (GaAs)
    The pad is subdivided into strips of arbitrarily chosen width for uniformity measurements, as stated in footnote 3 of Section 6.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The average energy to create an electron-hole pair is 3.6 eV in silicon and 4.2 eV in gallium arsenide.
    Used to convert simulated energy loss to charge carriers in Section 6.2, from references [25] and [26].
  • domain assumption The hole drift contribution to the signal in chromium-compensated GaAs is highly suppressed and assumed to be zero.
    Adopted in the GaAs simulation (Section 6.2), based on reference [27]. If this assumption is wrong, the simulated signal sizes and the interpretation of the between-pad signal loss could change.
  • domain assumption The Geant4 QGSP_BERT physics list with electromagnetic 'option 4' and a 1 um range cut off accurately describes 5 GeV electron energy deposition.
    The simulation setup is described in Section 6.2; the choice is standard but is a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The beam intensity is flat over the pad and trace area when estimating the fraction of wrongly assigned signal.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 6.6; the 2e-4 ratio depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The telescope track resolution of about 37-40 um is sufficient to reliably assign hits to pads and study edge effects.
    Used in the alignment and pad-edge analyses (Sections 4 and 5.1); stated resolution is dominated by multiple scattering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Novel Silicon and GaAs Sensors for Compact Sampling Calorimeters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5STNHRIE

@misc{pith2026250107431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Novel Silicon and GaAs Sensors for Compact Sampling Calorimeters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5STNHRIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07431}
}
abstract

Two samples of silicon pad sensors and two samples of GaAs sensors are studied in an electron beam with 5 GeV energy from the DESY-II test-beam facility. The sizes of the silicon and GaAs sensors are about 9$\times$9 cm$^2$ and 5$\times$8 cm$^2$, respectively. The thickness is 500 micrometer for both the silicon and GaAs sensors. The pad size is about 5$\times$5 mm$^2$. The sensors are foreseen to be used in a compact electromagnetic sampling calorimeter. The readout of the pads is done by metal traces connected to the pads and the front-end ASICs at the edges of the sensors. For the silicon sensors, copper traces on a Kapton foil are connected to the sensor pads with conducting glue. The pads of the GaAs sensors are connected to bond-pads via aluminium traces on the sensor substrate. The readout is based on a dedicated front-end ASIC, called FLAME. Pre-processing of the raw data and deconvolution is performed with FPGAs. The whole system is orchestrated by a Trigger Logic Unit. Results are shown for the signal-to-noise ratio, the homogeneity of the response, edge effects on pads, and for signals due to the readout traces.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nelson, W.R.,et al.: Electron-Induced Cascade Showers in Copper and Lead at 1 GeV. Phys. Rev.149(1), 201 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1103/ physrev.149.201

    work page 1966

  2. [2]

    Bathow, G.,et al.: Measurements of the longitudinal and lateral develop- ment of electromagnetic cascades in lead, copper and aluminum at 6 GeV. Nucl. Phys. B20(3), 592 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(70) 90389-5

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(70 1970

  3. [3]

    JINST5, 12002 (2010) arXiv:1009.2433 [physics.ins-det]

    Abramowicz, H.,et al.: Forward Instrumentation for ILC Detectors. JINST5, 12002 (2010) arXiv:1009.2433 [physics.ins-det]. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1748-0221/5/12/P12002

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Abramowicz, H.,et al.: Technical Design Report for the LUXE exper- iment. Eur. Phys. J. ST233(10), 1709–1974 (2024) arXiv:2308.00515 [hep-ex]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-024-01164-9

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Bhabha, H.J.: The scattering of positrons by electrons with exchange on Dirac’s theory of the positron. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A154, 195–206 24Novel Silicon and GaAs Sensors for Compact Sampling Calorimeters (1936). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1936.0046

    work page arXiv 1936

  6. [6]

    JINST7, 11022 (2012)

    Afanaciev, K.,et al.: Investigation of the radiation hardness of GaAs sensors in an electron beam. JINST7, 11022 (2012). https://doi.org/10. 1088/1748-0221/7/11/P11022

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Kruchonak, U.,et al.: Radiation hardness of GaAs: Cr and Si sensors irradiated by electron beam. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A975, 164204 (2020) arXiv:2006.01254 [physics.ins-det]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020. 164204

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    de Boer, W.,et al.: A fourfold segmented silicon strip sensor with read- out at the edges. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A788, 154–160 (2015). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2015.03.082

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.03.082 2015

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Abramowicz, H.,et al.: Performance and Moli` ere radius measurements using a compact prototype of LumiCal in an electron test beam. Eur. Phys. J. C79(7), 579 (2019) arXiv:1812.11426 [physics.ins-det]. https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7077-9

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Breit, G., Wheeler, J.A.: Collision of two light quanta. Phys. Rev.46(12), 1087–1091 (1934). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.46.1087

    1934 doi

  3. [11]

    Tatsuhiko, T., et al.: A study of silicon sensor for ILD ECAL (2014) arXiv:1403.7953 [physics.ins-det]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    IEEE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SYM- POSIUM AND MEDICAL IMAGING CONFERENCE (2021)

    Tyazhev, A.: Novel highly compact electromagnetic calorimeters based on High Resistive GaAs:Cr sensors. IEEE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SYM- POSIUM AND MEDICAL IMAGING CONFERENCE (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    https://indico.cern.ch/event/1127562/contributions/4904506/ attachments/2512388/4318796/moron TWEPP 2022 09 21.pdf

    Moron, J.: FLAME SoC readout ASIC for electromagnetic calorime- ter. https://indico.cern.ch/event/1127562/contributions/4904506/ attachments/2512388/4318796/moron TWEPP 2022 09 21.pdf. TWEPP 2022 Topical Workshop on Electronics for Particle Physics, Bergen, Norway (September 1...

    2022

  6. [14]

    https://agenda.infn

    Idzik, M.: The FLAME and FLAXE ASICs. https://agenda.infn. it/event/36206/contributions/202659/attachments/106949/150868/ idzik FEE 2023 06 FLAME.pdf. XII Front-end Electronics Workshop, Torino, Italy (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Acta Phys

    Kulis, S., Idzik, M.: Triggerless readout with time and amplitude recon- struction of event based on deconvolution algorithm. Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.4, 49–58 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.4.49

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Diener, R.,et al.: The DESY II test beam facility. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 922, 265–286 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2018.11.133 Novel Silicon and GaAs Sensors for Compact Sampling Calorimeters25

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    JINST14(09), 09019 (2019) arXiv:2005.00310 [physics.ins-det]

    Baesso, P.,et al.: The AIDA-2020 TLU: a flexible trigger logic unit for test beam facilities. JINST14(09), 09019 (2019) arXiv:2005.00310 [physics.ins-det]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/14/09/P09019

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    JINST15(01), 01038 (2020) arXiv:1909.13725 [physics.ins-det]

    Ahlburg, P.,et al.: EUDAQ-a data acquisition software framework for common beam telescopes. JINST15(01), 01038 (2020) arXiv:1909.13725 [physics.ins-det]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/01/P01038

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    JINST14(10), 10033 (2019) arXiv:1907.10600 [physics.ins-det]

    Liu, Y.,et al.: EUDAQ2—A flexible data acquisition software framework for common test beams. JINST14(10), 10033 (2019) arXiv:1907.10600 [physics.ins-det]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/14/10/P10033

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    JINST16(03), 03008 (2021) arXiv:2011.12730 [physics.ins-det]

    Dannheim, D.,et al.: Corryvreckan: A Modular 4D Track Reconstruction and Analysis Software for Test Beam Data. JINST16(03), 03008 (2021) arXiv:2011.12730 [physics.ins-det]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/ 16/03/P03008

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E.: Use of the Hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures. Commun. ACM15(1), 11 (1972). https://doi.org/ 10.1145/361237.361242

    1972

  14. [22]

    Pat- tern Recognition Letters11(3), 167–174 (1990)

    Ben-Tzvi, D., Sandler, M.B.: A combinatorial Hough transform. Pat- tern Recognition Letters11(3), 167–174 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0167-8655(90)90002-J

    1990

  15. [23]

    Agostinelli, S.,et al.: Geant4 - a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(3), 250–303 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03) 01368-8

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    Brun, R., Rademakers, F.: Root — an object oriented data analysis frame- work. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A389(1), 81–86 (1997). https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X

    1997

  17. [25]

    (eds.): Particle Physics Reference Library: Volume 2: Detectors for Particles and Radiation

    Fabjan, C.W., Schopper, H. (eds.): Particle Physics Reference Library: Volume 2: Detectors for Particles and Radiation. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35318-6

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Nam, S.B., Reynolds, D.C., Litton, C.W., Almassy, R.J., Collins, T.C., Wolfe, C.M.: Free-exciton energy spectrum in GaAs. Phys. Rev. B13, 761–767 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.13.761

    1976 doi

  19. [27]

    and others: GaAs as a material for particle detectors

    Ayzenshtat A.I. and others: GaAs as a material for particle detectors. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment494(1), 120– 127 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01455-9. Procee...

    2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.