Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 18 references

Neutron activation method detects 40K below 10⁻¹⁵ g/g in liquid scintillators

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 12:39 UTC pith:OWOLWISY

load-bearing objection New radiochemical NAA method for 40K in liquid scintillators reaches 2.9e-16 g/g sensitivity; the recovery efficiency correction has a scale-mismatch problem that needs addressing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07376 v1 pith:OWOLWISY submitted 2026-07-08 physics.ins-det

Ultra-trace analysis of 40K in organic liquid scintillators

A. Barresi , D. Chiesa , D. Merli , M. Nastasi , S. Nisi , E. Previtali , M. Sisti , M. Borghesi
show 59 more authors
A. Cammi C. Coletta G. Ferrante L. Loi G. Andronico V. Antonelli D. Basilico M. Beretta A. Bergnoli A. Brigatti R. Brugnera R. Bruno A. Budano B. Caccianiga A. Caslini V. Cerrone R. Caruso C. Clementi L.V. D'Auria S. Dusini A. Fabbri G. Felici A. Garfagnini M.G. Giammarchi N. Giudice A. Gavrikov M. Grassi N. Guardone F. Houria A. Islam C. Landini L. Lastrucci I. Lippi P. Lombardi F. Mantovani S.M. Mari A. Martini L. Miramonti M. Montuschi D. Orestano F. Ortica A. Paoloni L. Pelicci E. Percalli F. Petrucci G. Ranucci A.C. Re B. Ricci A. Romani A. Serafini C. Sirignano L. Stanco E. Stanescu Farilla V. Strati M.D.C Torri C. Tuv\'e C. Venettacci G. Verde L. Votano
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det
keywords neutron activation analysisliquid scintillatorpotassium-40radiopurity screeningradiochemical separationHPGe gamma spectroscopyultra-trace analysisJUNO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper presents a method for measuring potassium-40 concentrations in organic liquid scintillators at levels below 10⁻¹⁵ g/g, a sensitivity threshold demanded by modern rare-event neutrino experiments. The approach combines neutron activation analysis with a post-irradiation radiochemical procedure: liquid-liquid extraction transfers potassium from the organic scintillator into an aqueous phase, selective precipitation as potassium tetraphenylborate isolates it from interfering elements (primarily sodium-24), and a well-type HPGe detector measures the resulting 42K gamma emission at 1525 keV. The sodium removal efficiency is 98.3%, bringing the residual background in the region of interest close to the detector's intrinsic background. Applied to a JUNO liquid scintillator sample, the method yields a 40K concentration of (6.5±1.6)·10⁻¹⁶ g/g and a minimum detectable concentration of 2.9·10⁻¹⁶ g/g.

Core claim

The central result is that a two-stage radiochemical treatment—liquid-liquid extraction followed by selective precipitation of potassium tetraphenylborate—when applied after neutron irradiation and before HPGe gamma spectroscopy, achieves a minimum detectable 40K concentration of 2.9·10⁻¹⁶ g/g in organic liquid scintillators. This surpasses the 10⁻¹⁵ g/g barrier that standard neutron activation analysis alone cannot cross, primarily because the radiochemical step removes 98.3% of interfering sodium-24 whose Compton continuum would otherwise overwhelm the 42K signal region. The method was validated on a JUNO scintillator sample, yielding a measured concentration of (6.5±1.6)·10⁻¹⁶ g/g.

What carries the argument

Post-irradiation radiochemical chain: liquid–liquid extraction (acetic acid, three passes) → selective precipitation as K-TPB (potassium tetraphenylborate) → filtration → well-type HPGe gamma spectroscopy at 1525 keV (42K decay)

Load-bearing premise

The potassium recovery efficiency of (77±10)%, determined from twelve spiked samples, is assumed to be stable and representative for real liquid scintillator samples. Individual recoveries ranged from 38% to 100%, with losses attributed to filter clogging and leakage, so the final sensitivity calculation depends on this average holding for actual samples.

What would settle it

If the recovery efficiency for real (non-spiked) scintillator samples systematically falls below the 77% measured from spiked samples—due to matrix effects, different potassium speciation in actual LS, or filtration variability—the reported minimum detectable concentration of 2.9·10⁻¹⁶ g/g would worsen proportionally, potentially pushing the method back above the 10⁻¹⁵ g/g threshold it claims to surpass.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a radiochemical procedure combining neutron activation analysis (NAA) with liquid–liquid extraction and potassium tetraphenylborate (K-TPB) precipitation, followed by low-background HPGe gamma spectroscopy, to achieve ultra-trace measurement of 40K in organic liquid scintillators. The method is applied to a JUNO linear alkyl benzene (LAB) sample, yielding a measured 40K concentration of (6.5±1.6)×10⁻¹⁶ g/g and a minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of 2.9×10⁻¹⁶ g/g. The radiochemical recovery efficiency is determined from 12 spiked samples at (77±10)%, and the sodium removal efficiency is reported at (98.3±0.1)%. The approach is motivated by the radiopurity requirements of rare-event experiments such as JUNO.

Significance. The development of screening techniques capable of measuring 40K below the 10⁻¹⁵ g/g level is of clear relevance to current and future neutrino experiments. The combination of post-irradiation radiochemical treatment with NAA is a reasonable and well-motivated strategy, and the reported MDC of 2.9×10⁻¹⁶ g/g, if robust, would represent a meaningful advance over direct NAA sensitivity. The sodium removal efficiency of (98.3±0.1)% and the demonstrated near-detector-intrinsic background level in the region of interest are notable strengths. The validation against a certified potassium standard and the use of the Currie detection limit framework [16] are appropriate methodological choices.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 4, Table 1: The recovery efficiency of (77±10)% was determined from 12 spiked samples each using 20 g of irradiated LS, while the actual JUNO measurement used 99.8 g (Section 5, Table 2). The radiochemical procedure in Section 3.1 is described as designed for a 100 mL LS sample, using three 10 mL extractions (30 mL total aqueous). For 20 g of LAB (density ~0.86 g/mL, ~23 mL organic), the organic:aqueous ratio is ~0.77, whereas for the 100 g measurement (~116 mL organic), it is ~3.9. The manuscript itself notes in Section 3.1 that extraction efficiency depends on the phase-volume ratio through the distribution coefficient κ. The paper does not state whether the reagent volumes were scaled for the 20 g efficiency tests or whether identical volumes were used as in the 100 mL procedure. If the procedure was not scaled, the extraction conditions differ substantially between the 20 g效率
  2. Section 4, Table 1: The individual recovery efficiencies range from 38% to 100%, a factor of ~2.6 variation. The manuscript attributes the low recoveries (samples 2 and 4) to filter clogging and leakage but does not provide a quantitative criterion for identifying and excluding such failures, nor does it discuss whether these failure modes could also affect real (non-spiked) samples. The mean of (77±10)% is used directly in the sensitivity calculation, but the large spread suggests that the efficiency is not well-controlled. This is load-bearing because the reported 40K concentration and MDC both scale linearly with the assumed recovery. Please address whether the failure modes are identifiable in real measurements (where the true potassium content is unknown) and whether a more conservative efficiency estimate is warranted.
  3. Section 5: The MDC of 2.9×10⁻¹⁶ g/g is derived from the background index of (6.9±0.2) counts/keV measured in the JUNO sample spectrum. However, this background is dominated by residual 24Na Compton continuum and detector intrinsic background, both of which depend on the level of interfering nuclides in the specific sample. The manuscript acknowledges that the JUNO sample was collected during commissioning and 'does not necessarily reflect the final radiopurity.' Please clarify whether the MDC is intended as a general sensitivity of the method or as specific to this particular sample's background conditions. If the former, please provide an estimate of how the MDC would vary with different sodium contamination levels.
minor comments (6)
  1. Section 3.1, step 1: The procedure states '0.5 mg of potassium carrier in the form of a 5 mg/mL KCl water solution,' while later in the same section it states '1.5 mg of natural (non-irradiated) potassium is added as a carrier during each extraction.' Please reconcile these statements (0.5 mg vs. 1.5 mg, and whether per extraction or total).
  2. Section 5, Table 2: The 40K concentration in the filter is reported as (0.65±0.16)×10⁻¹⁵ g/g, but the text states the final result is (6.5±1.6)×10⁻¹⁶ g/g. Please clarify the relationship between the filter measurement and the final LS concentration, including the recovery efficiency correction and mass normalization.
  3. Section 2.2: The neutron flux values are given as '1.7·10¹³' and '2.2·10¹²' but the formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the manuscript. Please ensure consistent notation throughout.
  4. Figure 4: The inset showing the 1525 keV region of interest is small. Consider enlarging or providing a separate figure for clearer presentation of the peak fit.
  5. Section 5: The detection limit formula (Eq. 1) uses μ_B for the background counts, but the text refers to a 'background index' in counts/keV. Please clarify how the background index is converted to μ_B (e.g., multiplication by FWHM and the 1.25 factor mentioned in the text).
  6. Reference [12] is cited for labware cleaning and material selection details, but it appears to be a companion paper (U and Th analysis). Please ensure that essential details relevant to this paper's reproducibility are either included or clearly cross-referenced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. All three major comments identify legitimate points that warrant revision. We will (1) clarify the extraction conditions used in the 20 g efficiency tests versus the 100 g measurement, (2) add discussion of failure-mode identifiability in real samples and consider a more conservative efficiency treatment, and (3) clarify the sample-specific versus general nature of the MDC and add discussion of how it scales with sodium contamination.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section 4, Table 1: The recovery efficiency of (77±10)% was determined from 12 spiked samples each using 20 g of irradiated LS, while the actual JUNO measurement used 99.8 g. The organic:aqueous ratio differs substantially between the two scales. The paper does not state whether reagent volumes were scaled for the 20 g efficiency tests or whether identical volumes were used as in the 100 mL procedure.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the manuscript does not explicitly state the extraction conditions used for the 20 g efficiency tests, and this omission must be remedied. In the 20 g spiked samples, the full 30 mL of extracting solution (three 10 mL aliquots of 0.1 M acetic acid with potassium carrier) was used, i.e., the same reagent volumes as in the 100 mL procedure. This means the aqueous-to-organic volume ratio was approximately 1.3:1 for the 20 g tests versus the approximately 1:3 ratio used for the 100 g measurement. We agree this is a substantive concern: the extraction conditions were not identical between the efficiency determination and the actual measurement. We will revise the manuscript to state explicitly the reagent volumes used in the efficiency tests and to acknowledge this difference in phase-volume ratio. We note that the distribution coefficient kappa depends on temperature and pH but not on phase volumes, and that the three-step extraction was designed to be robust across a range of ratios; however, we cannot rule out that the different conditions affected the measured recovery. We will add this as a stated limitation and note that future efficiency tests should be performed at the same scale as the measurement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section 4, Table 1: The individual recovery efficiencies range from 38% to 100%, a factor of ~2.6 variation. The manuscript attributes the low recoveries (samples 2 and 4) to filter clogging and leakage but does not provide a quantitative criterion for identifying and excluding such failures, nor does it discuss whether these failure modes could also affect real (non-spiked) samples. The mean of (77±10)% is used directly in the sensitivity calculation, but the large spread suggests that the efficiency is not well-controlled.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid concern about the reproducibility of the radiochemical recovery and its impact on the reported concentration and MDC. We will address this in two ways. First, regarding identifiability of failure modes in real samples: filter clogging and leakage are observable during the filtration step itself, as they manifest as visible loss of suspension from the syringe or inability to pass the solution through the filter. In the JUNO measurement, no such anomalies were observed. We will add this information to the manuscript. Second, regarding the use of the mean efficiency: we agree that the large spread warrants a more conservative treatment. We will add a discussion of the impact of using a lower-bound efficiency estimate (e.g., the mean minus one standard deviation, 67%) on the reported 40K concentration and MDC. Under this conservative assumption, the measured concentration would become approximately 7.5×10⁻¹⁶ g/g and the MDC would become approximately 3.4×10⁻¹⁶ g/g, which does not change the qualitative conclusion that the method surpasses the 10⁻¹⁵ g/g threshold. We will include this sensitivity analysis in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Section 5: The MDC of 2.9×10⁻¹⁶ g/g is derived from the background index of (6.9±0.2) counts/keV measured in the JUNO sample spectrum, which is dominated by residual 24Na Compton continuum and detector intrinsic background. The manuscript acknowledges that the JUNO sample was collected during commissioning and 'does not necessarily reflect the final radiopurity.' Please clarify whether the MDC is intended as a general sensitivity of the method or as specific to this particular sample's background conditions. If the former, please provide an estimate of how the MDC would vary with different sodium contamination levels.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the MDC as currently presented is specific to the background conditions of this particular sample, and the manuscript should make this explicit. The background index of (6.9±0.2) counts/keV is only slightly above the detector intrinsic background of (3.74±0.04) counts/keV, which was achieved thanks to the 98.3% sodium removal efficiency applied to a sample with a total Na mass of 15.9 ng. We will revise the manuscript to clarify that the reported MDC is specific to this measurement and to describe how it would scale with different sodium contamination levels. Specifically, since the Curie detection limit scales as the square root of the background, and the background above the intrinsic level scales with the residual 24Na after radiochemical treatment, the MDC would increase as sqrt(B_intrinsic + alpha × m_Na × (1 - epsilon_Na)), where alpha is a proportionality constant relating residual Na mass to Compton counts in the ROI, m_Na is the total sodium mass in the sample, and epsilon_Na is the Na removal efficiency. For samples with significantly higher sodium content, the MDC would degrade accordingly; conversely, for samples with lower sodium or improved removal efficiency, the MDC would approach the detector-intrinsic-background-limited value. We will add this scaling discussion and note that the 2.9×10⁻¹⁶ g/g MDC represents a near-best-case sensitivity achievable under the observed sodium removal performance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the MDC and concentration results are derived from independent measurements and standard formulas, not from self-referential definitions or fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central results — the 40K concentration of (6.5±1.6)·10⁻¹⁶ g/g and the MDC of 2.9·10⁻¹⁶ g/g — are derived from independent measurements and standard formulas, not from circular reasoning. The 40K concentration is computed from the measured 1525 keV 42K peak counts in the JUNO LS sample, corrected by the independently measured recovery efficiency of (77±10)% determined from 12 spiked samples (Section 4, Table 1). The MDC is derived from the measured background index near the ROI (6.9±0.2 counts/keV) using the Currie detection limit formula (Eq. 1) [16], which is an external, standard reference. The recovery efficiency is measured against a certified potassium standard (Inorganic Ventures), providing external validation. Self-citations [8, 12] refer to related but distinct methodological work (U/Th analysis, general NAA methodology) and are not load-bearing for the 40K result itself. The skeptic's concern about the 20 g vs 100 g scale difference affecting extraction efficiency is a correctness risk (the measured efficiency may not be representative at the larger scale), not a circularity issue — the efficiency is measured independently, not defined in terms of the quantity being predicted. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are the recovery efficiency and background index, both measured in the paper. The axioms are standard assumptions in NAA and radiochemistry. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • Recovery efficiency = 77±10%
    Determined from 12 spiked samples and used to correct the final concentration measurement.
  • Background index = 6.9±0.2 counts/keV
    Measured near the ROI and used to compute the minimum detectable concentration.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Natural isotopic composition of potassium
    The method assumes natural isotopic abundance of 40K (0.0117%) to infer 40K concentration from total potassium measurement (Section 2).
  • domain assumption No potassium contamination during post-irradiation handling
    The procedure assumes that all radiochemical operations after irradiation do not introduce potassium contamination (Section 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Recovery efficiency is stable
    The method assumes that the recovery efficiency measured from spiked samples is applicable to actual LS samples (Section 4).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 13554 in / 1585 out tokens · 342372 ms · 2026-07-09T12:39:06.012128+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Rare-event searches require exceptionally low background levels, motivating the development of increasingly sophisticated screening methods to push sensitivity limits. Liquid scintillators are particularly attractive detector media due to their intrinsic radiopurity and the ability to scale to large target masses. In this work, we present a screening strategy capable of measuring ultra-trace concentrations of $^{40}\text{K}$ with sensitivities below $10^{-15}$g/g. The method combines neutron activation analysis with a dedicated radiochemical treatment, followed by low-background HPGe gamma spectroscopy. Using this approach, we achieved a minimum detectable concentration of $2.9\cdot10^{-16}$g/g for $^{40}\text{K}$, placing this technique among the most sensitive currently available.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abusleme et al

    A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO collabora- tion): Radioactivity control strategy for the JUNO detector. Journal of High Energy Physics11, 102 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP11(2021)102

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Nature587, 577 (2020)

    The Borexino Collaboration: Experimental evidence of neutrinos produced in the CNO fusion cycle in the Sun. Nature587, 577 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Albanese et al

    V. Albanese et al. (The SNO+ collaboration): The SNO+ experiment. Journal of Instru- mentation16(08), 08059 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-0221/16/08/P08059

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/08/p08059 2021

  4. [4]

    Nature544, 47 (2017)

    The GERDA collaboration: Background-free search for neutrinoless double-βdecay of 76Ge with GERDA. Nature544, 47 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Augier et al.: The background model of the CUPID-Mo 0νββexperiment

    C. Augier et al.: The background model of the CUPID-Mo 0νββexperiment. The European Physical Journal C83, 675 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Adams et al

    D.Q. Adams et al. (CUORE Collabora- tion): Data-driven background model for the CUORE experiment. Phys. Rev. D 110, 052003 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.110.052003

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    LEGEND-1000 Preconceptual Design Report

    N. Abgrall et al. (LEGEND Collabora- tion): LEGEND-1000 Preconceptual Design 9 Report. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.11462 (2021)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    The European Physical Journal Plus 140(4), 311 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjp/s13360-025-06232-0

    Baccolo, G., Barresi, A., Chiesa, D., Nas- tasi, M., Previtali, E., Sisti, M.: Radiopurity screening of materials for rare event searches by neutron activation at the triga reactor of pavia. The European Physical Journal Plus 140(4), 311 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjp/s13360-025-06232-0

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    JUNO physics and detector,

    A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO collaboration): JUNO physics and detector. Progress in Par- ticle and Nuclear Physics123, 103927 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103927

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103927 2022

  10. [10]

    Zhang et al.: Refractive index in the juno liquid scintillator

    H.S. Zhang et al.: Refractive index in the juno liquid scintillator. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1068, 169730 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2024.169730

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2024.169730 2024

  11. [11]

    Beretta et al.: Fluorescence emission of the juno liquid scintillator

    M. Beretta et al.: Fluorescence emission of the juno liquid scintillator. Journal of Instru- mentation20(05), 05009 (2025) https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-0221/20/05/P05009

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/05/p05009 2025

  12. [12]

    The European Physical Journal C (2026)

    Barresi, A., Chiesa, D., Nastasi, M., Previ- tali, E., Sisti, M.: Ultra-trace analysis of u and th in organic liquid scintillators with high sensitivity. The European Physical Journal C (2026)

    work page 2026

  13. [13]

    Progress in Nuclear Energy70, 249–255 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2013.10.001

    Tigliole, A., Cammi, A., Chiesa, D., Clemenza, M., Manera, S., Nastasi, M., Pat- tavina, L., Ponciroli, R., Pozzi, S., Prata, M., Previtali, E., Salvini, A., Sisti, M.: TRIGA reactor absolute neutron flux mea- surement using activated isotopes. Progress in Nuclear Energy70, 249–255 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2013.10.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2013.10.001 2014

  14. [14]

    Annals of Nuclear Energy70, 157–168 (2014) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.02.012

    Chiesa, D., Previtali, E., Sisti, M.: Bayesian statistics applied to neutron activation data for reactor flux spectrum analysis. Annals of Nuclear Energy70, 157–168 (2014) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.02.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.02.012 2014

  15. [15]

    Annals of Nuclear Energy85, 925–936 (2015) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.07.011

    Chiesa, D., Clemenza, M., Nastasi, M., Pozzi, S., Previtali, E., Scionti, G., Sisti, M., Prata, M., Salvini, A., Cammi, A.: Measurement and simulation of the neutron flux distribution in the TRIGA Mark II reactor core. Annals of Nuclear Energy85, 925–936 (2015) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.07.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2015.07.011 2015

  16. [16]

    Application to radiochemistry

    Currie, L.A.: Limits for qualitative detection and quantitative determination. Application to radiochemistry. Anal Chem40(3), 586–593 (1968) https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60259a007

    work page doi:10.1021/ac60259a007 1968

  17. [17]

    Landini et al.: Distillation and gas strip- ping purification plants for the juno liquid scintillator

    C. Landini et al.: Distillation and gas strip- ping purification plants for the juno liquid scintillator. Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associ- ated Equipment1069, 169887 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2024.169887

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2024.169887 2024

  18. [18]

    Applied Radiation and Isotopes61(2), 151–160 (2004) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.03.037

    De Geer, L.-E.: Currie detection limits in gamma-ray spectroscopy. Applied Radiation and Isotopes61(2), 151–160 (2004) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.03.037 . Low Level Radionuclide Measurement Techniques - ICRM 10

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.03.037 2004