Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 31 references

Calibration of a $\Delta$E-E telescope based on CeBr$_3$ scintillator for secondary charged particles measurements in hadron therapy

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A plastic-plus-CeBr3 telescope follows Birks' law for proton, carbon, and lithium beams in hadron therapy, delivering ~10 MeV energy resolution, 171–282 ps timing, and charge separation of secondary fragments.

desk verdict Useful engineering calibration, but the CeBr3 Birks-law fit is quantitatively unsupported by the paper's own chi2 values. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05050 v2 pith:3F3P5P55 submitted 2025-02-07 physics.ins-det nucl-exphysics.med-ph

L. Gesson , J. Gross , C. Mozzi , C. Reibel , Ch. Finck , S. Higueret , T.D. Le , E. Traykov
show 5 more authors
J.C. Thomas N. Arbor M. Pullia G. Harmant M. Vanstalle
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detnucl-exphysics.med-ph
keywords hadrontherapyinstrumentationdE/dxdetectorsheavy-ionCeBr3scintillatorBirks'lawenergycalibrationparticleidentificationtimeresolution
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

This paper calibrates a $\Delta E$–$E$ telescope—a thin plastic scintillator in front of a CeBr$_3$ crystal—for the ion beams used in hadron therapy, and argues that the calibrated device can measure and identify the secondary charged fragments those beams produce in tissue-equivalent material. The central result is that both scintillators respond according to Birks' law across the clinical range: up to 50 MeV of deposited energy for the plastic and up to 2350 MeV for the CeBr$_3$ crystal, with energy resolution on the order of 10 MeV and coincidence time resolution of 282±1 ps for 180 MeV/u carbon ions (171±1 ps for 25 MeV protons). If the calibration is right, the telescope supplies the experimental fragment-production data that treatment-planning Monte Carlo codes currently lack, which is what justifies shrinking the safety margins those codes now force. The paper is careful to treat the fitted Birks' parameters as effective calibration constants for the full detection chain, not intrinsic properties of the scintillator materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the telescope itself: a 6×6×0.2 cm³ plastic scintillator (EJ-228) that records the energy loss $\Delta E$, followed by a 2×2 inch CeBr$_3$ crystal that records the remaining energy $E$, both read out by photomultipliers and digitized at 3.2 GHz. The argument is carried by the adapted Birks' law $A = (S' E + A_0)/(1 + k'_B E)$, used as a phenomenological three-parameter fit of pulse amplitude to deposited energy, with $S'$ a gain factor, $k'_B$ an effective quenching constant, and $A_0$ a pedestal; the paper stresses that these are effective parameters of the whole detection chain, not intrinsic material constants. The x-axis energies are not measured directly but computed from nominal beam energies, degrader thicknesses, and stopping-power tables, and Geant4 with the INCL++ fragmentation model supplies the straggling and scattering widths subtracted in quadrature, $\sigma_E = \sqrt{\sigma_{det}^2 - \sigma_{G4}^2}$, before resolutions are quoted; the same simulation is used to validate the calibration against the measured CeBr$_3$ energy spectra.

What would settle it

Direct a beam of a species and energy not used in the calibration, such as oxygen-16 ($^{16}$O) near 150 MeV/u or $\alpha$ particles through the same PMMA degraders, at the telescope and check whether the pulse amplitudes fall on the extrapolated Birks' law curves within uncertainties. A second check is to reconstruct fragment energies independently by time of flight over a known flight path (or with a magnetic spectrometer) for the same events and compare with the energies the calibration assigns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that one two-layer scintillator telescope can be calibrated with protons, lithium, and carbon beams from five accelerator facilities, and that the calibration carries over to its intended task: resolving secondary charged fragments by charge in $\Delta E$–$E$ space. For the plastic scintillator the pulse amplitude as a function of computed deposited energy follows the adapted Birks' law $A = (S' E + A_0)/(1 + k'_B E)$ up to 50 MeV, for both photomultiplier and voltage configurations tested; for the CeBr$_3$ crystal the same functional form holds up to 2350 MeV of deposited energy, with fitted quenching constants near $10^{-3}$ MeV$^{-1}$ that stay consistent across ion species at a given voltage. Energy resolution, after subtracting Monte Carlo straggling in quadrature, is on the order of 10 MeV for both detectors, and the coincidence time resolution between the two scintillators is 282±1 ps for 180 MeV/u $^{12}$C and 171±1 ps for 25 MeV protons. The authors present this as the first optimization of a CeBr$_3$-plus-plastic $\Delta E$–$E$ telescope for hadrontherapy secondaries, and show a $\Delta E$ versus $E$ scatter plot, from a 200 MeV/u carbon beam on a tissue-equivalent target, in which fragments with $Z = 1$ through $Z = 6$ form distinct branches.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes the energy each ion deposits in the two scintillators is already known from the nominal beam energy, the degrader thickness, and stopping-power calculations rather than measured independently, so any error in those computed energies shifts every fitted constant and quoted resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The telescope can be deployed in clinical-like conditions to record yields, charges, and energies of secondary charged fragments ($Z = 1$ to $Z = 6$) from proton and carbon beams on tissue-equivalent targets, as the distinct $\Delta E$–$E$ branches illustrate.
  • The calibrated CeBr$_3$ energy spectra become experimental benchmarks for Monte Carlo treatment-planning codes; the paper's own comparison already exposes a fragmentation tail present in the data but largely absent from the simulation.
  • With 171–282 ps timing, the same telescope extends to $\Delta E$–ToF particle identification for high-energy ions, tightening fragment identification beyond charge alone.
  • Because Birks' law holds up to 2350 MeV of deposited energy, one calibration curve per ion species and voltage setting covers the full clinical energy range, so no per-energy recalibration is needed before each measurement campaign.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-identical $k'_B$ values for protons, lithium, and carbon at a given voltage (for example 0.000857 and 0.000864 MeV$^{-1}$ at +350 V) suggest the quenching is set by the detector chain rather than the ion; if that holds, a future calibration could fix one shared $k'_B$ and fit only $S'$ per species, cutting the beam time needed to calibrate at each new facility.
  • The fragmentation-tail discrepancy between data and the INCL++ simulation implies the calibrated telescope could quantify underprediction of light-fragment yields; the paper notes the discrepancy but does not turn it into a measured cross section.
  • A testable extension the authors do not pursue is to use the CeBr$_3$ crystal's gamma-ray and neutron sensitivity in coincidence with charged fragments, connecting charged and neutral fragmentation channels in the same run.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports the calibration and characterization of a ΔE-E telescope consisting of a thin plastic scintillator (ΔE) and a CeBr3 crystal (E) for detecting secondary charged particles in hadron therapy. Data were taken with proton, lithium, and carbon beams at multiple facilities (Cyrcé, CAL, GSI, CNAO, GANIL). The response of both scintillators is fitted with an adapted Birks' law, and the authors claim adherence up to 50 MeV deposited energy for the plastic and up to 2350 MeV for CeBr3. They also report energy resolution on the order of 10 MeV and time resolutions of 282±1 ps for 180 MeV/u 12C and 171±1 ps for 25 MeV protons. The manuscript concludes that the calibrated telescope can identify secondary fragments by charge and will provide input for Monte Carlo benchmarking.

Significance. If the calibration and performance claims were validated, the detector would be a useful tool for measuring secondary charged particles produced by therapeutic ion beams, addressing a recognized gap in experimental nuclear data for hadron therapy. The paper presents data from several clinical and accelerator facilities, and the combination of a CeBr3 crystal with a plastic scintillator in a ΔE-E telescope is relatively novel. The time resolution values are competitive with existing systems. However, the central quantitative claims are currently not supported by the reported fit quality: the chi-square values of the Birks' law fits and the resolution fits are orders of magnitude larger than unity, and the quoted parameter uncertainties are unrealistically small. The energy scale used in all fits is itself computed, not independently measured, further weakening the reliability of the extracted parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 5, Table 2] The CeBr3 calibration fits have reduced chi-square values of order 10^3–10^4 (for example, χ²/ndf = 1.086e4/11 for carbon at +350 V, χ²/ndf = 1.037e4/4 for protons at +350 V, and even larger values for the +400 V fits). These values indicate large systematic deviations from the three-parameter Birks' law, yet the paper quotes parameter uncertainties at the 10^-4 level (e.g., S' = 0.1495±0.0005). The claim that 'adherence to Birks' law is observed up to 2350 MeV' is therefore not supported by the reported statistics. The authors should either report fits that are statistically acceptable, including systematic uncertainties and a discussion of the deviations, or restrict the claim to the energy range where the model actually describes the data.
  2. [§3.1 and §3.2, Figs. 4(b) and 6] The energy resolution fits also have extremely large chi-square per degree of freedom (e.g., χ²/ndf = 2421/10 for the plastic in Fig. 4(b), and χ²/ndf = 1.201e4/10 and 9160/31 for the CeBr3 in Fig. 6). The extracted parameters a and b therefore do not meaningfully represent the data, and the statement that the energy resolution is 'on the order of 10 MeV' is not supported. The manuscript should present the resolution data with a model that adequately fits the points and with uncertainties that reflect the scatter.
  3. [§2.3, Eq. (2.2), Table 1] The deposited energies used as the x-axis in all Birks' law fits are not measured independently but are computed from nominal beam energies, degrader thicknesses, and stopping-power calculations. Any systematic error in these assumptions shifts all fitted constants (S', k'B, A0) and the extracted resolutions. The Geant4 comparison in Fig. 7 is a partial check but uses the same class of stopping-power calculations, so it does not validate the absolute energy scale. This limitation should be stated explicitly, and an independent validation (e.g., via time-of-flight or a range measurement) would strengthen the calibration considerably.
  4. [§2.4, Eq. (2.3)] The intrinsic energy resolution is obtained by subtracting in quadrature the Geant4 standard deviation from the measured one: σ_E = sqrt(σ_det^2 - σ_G4^2). This is valid only if the two contributions are independent and Gaussian, and if the Geant4 simulation contains exactly the energy straggling and beam-scattering contributions and nothing else. The manuscript itself shows in Fig. 7(a) that the Geant4 distribution does not reproduce the fragmentation tail, so the full distributions are not identical. The values of σ_det and σ_G4 are not reported, making it impossible to assess whether the subtraction is physical. Please show these values separately and discuss the validity of the subtraction, including any cases where σ_G4 could approach or exceed σ_det.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a spacing error: 'dosedeposition' should be 'dose deposition'.
  2. [§2.1] There is a typo: 'fo X-ray and gamma-ray' should be 'for X-ray and gamma-ray'.
  3. [§3.4, Fig. 9] The axis label in Fig. 9 reads 'Time (ms)' while the values and text are in nanoseconds; correct the units.
  4. [Table 2] Table 2 lists only S' and k'B but the fit model Eq. (2.2) includes a third parameter A0. Either include A0 in the table or state clearly that it was found compatible with zero for all configurations.
  5. [Figures 3–6] The fit legends in Figures 3–6 use generic labels p0, p1, p2 alongside the physics parameters S', A0, kB'. Please make the notation consistent throughout.
  6. [Conclusion] The conclusion contains the typo 'the the CeBr3 crystal'; please correct it.
  7. [References] Reference [26] is garbled ('Cancer, Rev7.1(Realese 11.1), April July 31st, 2023'); please correct the citation to the Geant4 physics list documentation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The central calibration is an empirical fit; the only notable circularity is that the Geant4 simulation used to set the energy scale is also used to validate it.

  1. other [Section 2.4 and Section 3.2 (Figure 7)]
    "The Monte Carlo code Geant4 10.07 [6] with the INCL++ physics list [26] was used to evaluate the deposited energy in the plastic scintillator, and the energy of the ions reaching the CeBr3 crystal, after its entrance window. ... To validate the calibration of the CeBr3 scintillator, experimental data in energy are compared with Geant4 simulations, as depicted in Figure 7."

    The calibration's independent variable E_dep is not measured with the telescope; it is taken from the Geant4 energy-loss simulation described in Section 2.4. Section 3.2 then uses Geant4 as the reference to validate the calibrated energy data. Because the calibrated energy scale is anchored to Geant4-computed deposited energies, the position of the data peak in Figure 7 will reproduce the simulated peak by construction; the comparison can only check spectral shape, straggling width, and tails, not the absolute energy scale. This is a mild circular validation, but the Birks-law fit itself is not circular: the parameters (S', k'B, A0) are free calibration constants, and the energy scale is an external input rather than an output of the fit.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a calibration/characterization study, not a derivation from first principles. The Birk's law parameters are explicitly described as effective, free parameters fitted to data, so the 'adherence' claim is a fit-quality statement rather than a prediction. Time resolution (282±1 ps for 180 MeV/u 12C and 171±1 ps for 25 MeV protons) and ΔE-E ion separation are direct measurements. No load-bearing self-citations were found: the only self-citation [20] concerns analysis software and is not central to the physics claims. The one circular element is the Geant4-based validation discussed above; it is secondary and does not force the central calibration. The reported reduced chi-square values of ~10^3–10^4 for CeBr3 fits indicate poor model agreement, but that is a correctness/fit-quality concern, not circularity. The overall score reflects one minor, non-central circular validation.

Assumptions & free parameters 27 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new physical entities; its central results are a set of fitted calibration constants. The load-bearing assumptions are the validity of the Birks' law functional form, the pre-computed energy-deposition scale, the accuracy of Geant4 straggling predictions, and PMT amplitude linearity. All of these are standard detector-physics assumptions but are not independently verified in this work, and the fit quality does not support the quoted parameter uncertainties.

free parameters (27)
  • S'_plastic_1100V = 8.4 ± 0.8 mV/MeV
    Birks' law conversion factor for plastic scintillator at -1100 V, fitted to amplitude versus deposited energy (Figure 3).
  • kB'_plastic_1100V = 0.0074 ± 0.0026 MeV^-1
    Effective quenching parameter for plastic at -1100 V (Figure 3).
  • A0_plastic_1100V = 12 ± 4 mV
    Pedestal amplitude for plastic at -1100 V (Figure 3).
  • S'_plastic_1200V = 2.30 ± 0.16 mV/MeV
    Birks' law conversion factor for plastic at -1200 V (Figure 4(a)).
  • kB'_plastic_1200V = 0.0048 ± 0.0019 MeV^-1
    Effective quenching parameter for plastic at -1200 V (Figure 4(a)).
  • A0_plastic_1200V = 7.4 ± 0.5 mV
    Pedestal amplitude for plastic at -1200 V (Figure 4(a)).
  • S'_CeBr3_350V_C = 0.1495 ± 0.0005 mV/MeV
    Birks' law conversion factor for CeBr3 at +350 V fitted to carbon ion data (Figure 5(a)).
  • kB'_CeBr3_350V_C = 0.0008570 ± 0.0000024 MeV^-1
    Effective quenching parameter for CeBr3 at +350 V for carbon ions (Figure 5(a)).
  • A0_CeBr3_350V_C = 6.0 ± 0.6 mV
    Pedestal amplitude for CeBr3 at +350 V for carbon ions (Figure 5(a)).
  • S'_CeBr3_350V_H = 0.3590 ± 0.0002 mV/MeV
    Birks' law conversion factor for CeBr3 at +350 V fitted to proton data (Figure 5(a)).
  • kB'_CeBr3_350V_H = 0.0008638 ± 0.0000024 MeV^-1
    Effective quenching parameter for CeBr3 at +350 V for protons (Figure 5(a)).
  • A0_CeBr3_350V_H = 12.07 ± 0.17 mV
    Pedestal amplitude for CeBr3 at +350 V for protons (Figure 5(a)).
  • S'_CeBr3_400V_C = 0.67816 ± 0.00014 mV/MeV
    Birks' law conversion factor for CeBr3 at +400 V fitted to carbon ion data (Figure 5(b)).
  • kB'_CeBr3_400V_C = 0.0028710 ± 0.0000008 MeV^-1
    Effective quenching parameter for CeBr3 at +400 V for carbon ions (Figure 5(b)).
  • A0_CeBr3_400V_C = 7.817 ± 0.029 mV
    Pedestal amplitude for CeBr3 at +400 V for carbon ions (Figure 5(b)).
  • S'_CeBr3_400V_H = 1.16617 ± 0.00029 mV/MeV
    Birks' law conversion factor for CeBr3 at +400 V fitted to proton data (Figure 5(b)).
  • kB'_CeBr3_400V_H = 0.003727 ± 0.000006 MeV^-1
    Effective quenching parameter for CeBr3 at +400 V for protons (Figure 5(b)).
  • A0_CeBr3_400V_H = 6.821 ± 0.004 mV
    Pedestal amplitude for CeBr3 at +400 V for protons (Figure 5(b)).
  • S'_CeBr3_400V_Li = 0.2415 ± 0.0003 mV/MeV
    Birks' law conversion factor for CeBr3 at +400 V fitted to lithium ion data (Figure 5(b)).
  • kB'_CeBr3_400V_Li = 0.0007170 ± 0.0000015 MeV^-1
    Effective quenching parameter for CeBr3 at +400 V for lithium ions (Figure 5(b)).
  • A0_CeBr3_400V_Li = 5.727 ± 0.016 mV
    Pedestal amplitude for CeBr3 at +400 V for lithium ions (Figure 5(b)).
  • a_plastic_1200V = 3.16 ± 0.08
    Resolution fit parameter a in Eq. (2.4) for plastic at -1200 V (Figure 4(b)).
  • b_plastic_1200V = 55.46 ± 0.13 MeV^1/2
    Resolution fit parameter b in Eq. (2.4) for plastic at -1200 V (Figure 4(b)).
  • a_CeBr3_350V = 0.4178 ± 0.0061
    Resolution fit parameter a in Eq. (2.4) for CeBr3 at +350 V (Figure 6(a)).
  • b_CeBr3_350V = 56.47 ± 0.23 MeV^1/2
    Resolution fit parameter b in Eq. (2.4) for CeBr3 at +350 V (Figure 6(a)).
  • a_CeBr3_400V = 0.9487 ± 0.0079
    Resolution fit parameter a in Eq. (2.4) for CeBr3 at +400 V (Figure 6(b)).
  • b_CeBr3_400V = 31.04 ± 0.16 MeV^1/2
    Resolution fit parameter b in Eq. (2.4) for CeBr3 at +400 V (Figure 6(b)).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Birks' law, in its original differential form (Eq. 2.1) and the adapted total-energy form (Eq. 2.2), adequately models the scintillator light output for protons, lithium, and carbon ions over the measured energy range.
    The paper fits this phenomenological model to all calibration data; any functional misspecification would bias every extracted constant. Entered in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption The deposited energy E in each scintillator is known from the nominal beam energies, degrader thicknesses, and standard stopping-power calculations.
    The x-axis values of all calibration and resolution curves are computed, not measured event-by-event in an independent way. Entered in Section 2.2 and Table 1.
  • domain assumption Geant4 with the INCL++ physics list correctly predicts energy straggling and beam scattering for the ions and energies used, so that subtracting sigma_G4 in quadrature (Eq. 2.3) yields the intrinsic detector resolution.
    The reported 'intrinsic' resolutions depend directly on the accuracy of sigma_G4; the paper itself notes that several experimental effects are not modeled. Entered in Section 2.4.
  • domain assumption The PMT output amplitude (mV) is proportional to the scintillation light output over the operating range, and the pulse shape does not introduce ion-dependent bias when using amplitude as the Birks' law observable.
    The paper fits amplitude, not integrated charge, and does not characterize amplitude-versus-charge linearity for each ion species. Entered in Sections 2.1 and 2.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Calibration of a $\Delta$E-E telescope based on CeBr$_3$ scintillator for secondary charged particles measurements in hadron therapy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3F3P5P55

@misc{pith2026250205050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Calibration of a $\Delta$E-E telescope based on CeBr$_3$ scintillator for secondary charged particles measurements in hadron therapy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3F3P5P55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05050}
}
abstract

Hadrontherapy is an established cancer treatment method that enables a more localized dose deposition compared to conventional radiotherapy, potentially reducing the dose to surrounding healthy tissues in certain clinical cases. However, a key limitation in current treatment planning lies in the limited experimental data available for the characterization of secondary particles generated by nuclear interactions of the primary beam with tissues, which directly impacts the accuracy of Monte Carlo tools and analytical models used in dose calculations. Indeed, this leads to the adoption of larger safety margins and can limit the use of hadrontherapy for treating certain complex or sensitive tumor locations. This work is part of the context of the characterization of secondary charged particles generated by ion beams in the energy range relevant for particle therapy applications, using a $\Delta E-E$ telescope comprising a CeBr$_3$ crystal scintillator and a plastic scintillator. The calibration and response of this telescope to ions commonly used in clinical settings is presented in this work, highlighting adherence to Birks' law for accurate energy measurements. This study is the first to optimize a $\Delta E-E$ telescope combining CeBr$_3$ and plastic scintillators specifically for secondary particle detection in hadrontherapy. It represents an essential step toward the experimental acquisition of nuclear data, enabling accurate measurement and identification of secondary charged particles generated by therapeutic beams in tissue-equivalent materials. The system is designed for use in controlled experimental setups that reproduce clinical conditions, with the goal of improving the predictive accuracy of treatment planning software through enhanced Monte Carlo simulation inputs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Durante and J

    M. Durante and J. S. Loeffler. Charged particles in radiation oncology.Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 7(1):37–43, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Paganetti.Proton therapy physics

    H. Paganetti.Proton therapy physics. CRC Press, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Schardt, T

    D. Schardt, T. Elsässer, and D. Schulz-Ertner. Heavy-ion tumor therapy: physical and radiobiological benefits. Reviews of Modern Physics, 82(1):383, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    T. T. Böhlen et al. The fluka code: developments and challenges for high energy and medical applications. Nuclear Data Sheets, 120:211–214, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Sarrut et al

    D. Sarrut et al. A review of the use and applications of the geant4 monte carlo simulation toolkit in radiation therapy.Frontiers in Oncology, 4:365, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. Geant4—a simulation toolkit.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 506(3):250–303, 2003

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Kox et al

    S. Kox et al. Trends of total reaction cross-sections for heavy ion collisions in the intermediate energy range. Physical Review C, 35(5):1678–1692, 1987

    work page 1987

  8. [8]

    Fragmentation measurements in particle therapy: Status and plans of the foot experiment.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2374(1):012184, 2022

    Benedetto Di Ruzza and The FOOT Collaboration. Fragmentation measurements in particle therapy: Status and plans of the foot experiment.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2374(1):012184, 2022. – 18 –

    work page 2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Paganetti

    H. Paganetti. Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations.Physics in Medicine and Biology, 57(11):R99–R117, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Cebr3 - cerium bromide scintillator crystal.Advatech UK Ltd

  3. [11]

    Investigation of the LaBr3 scintillator response to heavy ions.Radiation Measurements, 115:43–48, August 2018

    Alex Miller, Rachid Machrafi, and Abuzar Fariad. Investigation of the LaBr3 scintillator response to heavy ions.Radiation Measurements, 115:43–48, August 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Quarati, Alan Owens, P

    F.G.A. Quarati, Alan Owens, P. Dorenbos, J.T.M. de Haas, G. Benzoni, N. Blasi, C. Boiano, S. Brambilla, F. Camera, R. Alba, G. Bellia, C. Maiolino, D. Santonocito, M. Ahmed, N. Brown, S. Stave, H.R. Weller, and Y.K. Wu. High energy gamma-ray spectroscopy with LaBr3 scintillati...

    2011

  5. [13]

    Hamamatsu Photonics,R7057 – Head-on Photomultiplier Tube, datasheet, disponible en ligne : https://www.hamamatsu.com/eu/en/product/optical-sensors/pmt/pmt_tube-alone/ head-on-type/R7057.html, consulté en juin 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    The wavecatcher family of sca-based 12-bit 3.2-gs/s fast digitizers

    Dominique Breton, Eric Delagnes, Jihane Maalmi, and Pascal Rusquart. The wavecatcher family of sca-based 12-bit 3.2-gs/s fast digitizers. pages 1–8, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Dosimetry and characterization of a 25-MeV proton beam line for preclinical radiobiology research.Medical Physics, 46(5):2356–2362, May 2019

    Julie Constanzo, Marie Vanstalle, Christian Finck, David Brasse, and Marc Rousseau. Dosimetry and characterization of a 25-MeV proton beam line for preclinical radiobiology research.Medical Physics, 46(5):2356–2362, May 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Hofverberg, M

    P. Hofverberg, M. Antunes, C. Armando, J.-M. Bergerot, E. Bourrel, J.-F. Dicarlo, G. Donadey, S. Dumas, D. Fayaud, J.-C. Grini, A. Giusto, Y. Payan, M. Rolion, C. Salicis, G. Angellier, J. Hérault, D. Maneval, M. Vidal, P. Mandrillon, F. Bezerra, J. Mekki, and R. Trimaud. A 60...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Sis100/sis18 heavy ion synchrotron

    GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research. Sis100/sis18 heavy ion synchrotron. https://www.gsi.de/en/work/project_management_fair/sis100sis18_sis/heavy_ion_ synchrotron_sis18

  10. [18]

    The Experimental Beam Line at CNAO

    Marco Pullia et al. The Experimental Beam Line at CNAO. In7th International Particle Accelerator Conference, page TUPMR038, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Anne and A.-C

    R. Anne and A.-C. Mueller. Lise 3: a magnetic spectrometer—wien filter combination for secondary radioactive beam production.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 70:276, 1992

    1992

  12. [20]

    Finck et al

    Ch. Finck et al. Study for online range monitoring with the interaction vertex imaging method. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 62, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    J.B. Birks. Scintillations from organic crystals: Specific fluorescence and relative response to different radiations.Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A, pages 64–874, 1951

    1951

  14. [22]

    Knoll.Radiation Detection and Measurement

    G. Knoll.Radiation Detection and Measurement. John Wiley & Sons, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Bross, A

    A. Bross, A. Pla-Dalmau, K. Mellott, and M. Knott. New developments in plastic scintillators. In IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    R. A. Cecil, B. D. Anderson, and R. Madey. Improved predictions of range-energy relations for heavy ions. Nuclear Instruments and Methods, 1979

    1979

  17. [25]

    F. D. Brooks. Development of organic scintillators.Nuclear Instruments and Methods, 1979

    1979

  18. [26]

    Guide for physics lists.Cancer, Rev7.1(Realese 11.1), April July 31st, 2023. – 19 –

    2023

  19. [27]

    Salvador et al

    S. Salvador et al. Timing capabilities of cebr3 crystals for fast neutron detection.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 955:163309, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    W. R. Leo.Techniques for Nuclear and Particle Physics Experiments: A How-To Approach. Springer, 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    Hampel et al

    W. Hampel et al. Energy resolution of scintillation detectors at low light levels.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 299(1–3):308–312, 1990

    1990

  22. [30]

    Hamm and M

    R. Hamm and M. E. Hamm.Industrial Accelerators and Their Applications. 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Salvador et al

    S. Salvador et al. Timing performances of a time-of-flight detection system for the fracas large acceptance mass spectrometer.Journal of Instrumentation 15, 2020. – 20 –

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.