https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1507-9674
Figures
Abstract
We investigated the correlation between the surface finish and luminescence properties of chemically polished cerium-doped single-crystal Gd3Al2Ga3O12 scintillators (Ce:GAGG), from the crystallographic perspective. The intrinsic defects in the crystals were identified via photoluminescence spectroscopy followed by scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction to analyze their surface morphologies. Finally, the samples were individually wrapped with an enhanced specular reflector (ESR), coupled with a photomultiplier tube, placed inside a dark box, connected to a digitizer, and irradiated with a 137Cs radioactive source to evaluate the relative light (signal) output and energy resolution of each sample. The as-cut (rough) Ce:GAGG single-crystal samples, that were chemically polished with phosphoric acid at 190°C in air for 60 min, demonstrated a 33.1% increase in signal amplitude (light output to photosensor) and 2.4% (absolute value) improvement in energy resolution, which were comparable to those obtained for the mechanically polished sample. For these samples, the surface roughness was found to be ~430 nm, which was approximately half of that of the mechanically polished sample. The chemical polishing method used in this study is a cost-effective and straightforward technique to improve structural imperfections and can facilitate the treatment of inorganic scintillators with complex shapes and/or on a large scale.
Citation: Park C, Kim S, Melis A, Lee W, Elmughrabi A, Cho S, et al. (2023) Scintillation characteristics of chemically processed Ce:GAGG single crystals. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0281262. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281262
Editor: P. Davide Cozzoli, University of Salento, ITALY
Received: March 14, 2022; Accepted: January 19, 2023; Published: March 7, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Park et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020R1I1A1A01070761 to CP, and 2022R1I1A1A01065484 to SK), and Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korean government (MOTIE) (20214000000070 to JY, Promoting of Expert for Energy Industry Advancement in the Field of Radiation Technology).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Radiation detection and monitoring are gradually emerging as an integral part of numerous routine applications, including medicine, high-energy physics, homeland securities, and oil well logging, and inorganic scintillators that convert radiation into scintillation light are steadily becoming instrumental components of radiation detectors and monitors [1]. The conversion of radiation into scintillation light and its subsequent detection using photodetectors is strongly dependent on the intrinsic quality and fabrication of the scintillator. Thus, a significant improvement in the optical and luminescence properties of inorganic scintillators is crucial for developing highly efficient scintillators for the aforementioned applications [2]. Since 2010, several promising candidate materials, doped with rare earth elements that exhibit attractive properties, such as high density, fast timing response, and high optical transparency, have been introduced [3, 4]. Among such candidate materials, cerium-doped Gd3Al2Ga3O12 (Ce:GAGG) has gained widespread attention owing to its high light yield [5–7]. In addition, the Ce:GAGG scintillator with the garnet structure is a non-hygroscopic material with a density of 6.63 g/cm3 and a light yield of 56,000 photons/MeV [7].
The light yield of a scintillator is affected by its crystallographic structure; moreover, inevitable microscopic conditions, such as surface roughness and defects produced near the surface during the manufacturing (e.g., dicing), can reduce the scintillation light output. Therefore, to obtain superior optical and luminescence properties, the crystallographic structure is modified via additional post-crystal-growth treatments, such as thermal annealing and surface finishing [8]. Because the surface of the crystal contains defects and impurities generated from the crystal growth or surface finishing, they can affect scintillation properties (luminescent and optical transport) of the crystals.
In addition, scintillation light photons undergo multiple transmissions, reflections, absorptions, and scatterings during their propagation to the photodetector, leading to light loss, which affects the total light collection efficiency of the photodetector such as photomultiplier tube (PMT) and semiconductor detectors. Rough and smooth surfaces are known to exhibit vastly different reflection characteristics—the former leads to diffused reflections, whereas the latter causes specular reflections.
The above-mentioned factors imply that the surface finish of a scintillator plays a crucial role in its scintillation and light-collection efficiencies. Several authors have reported various surface finishing techniques to mitigate the heterogeneity of a rough scintillator-crystal surface [9–16]. According to these reported studies, employing improved polishing or coating techniques can aid in reducing the surface damage or surface inhomogeneity produced during the crystal growth, and improve the light transmission efficiency of a scintillator crystal. For rectangular scintillators, mechanical polishing is widely employed to flatten the surfaces, resulting in crystals with uniform surfaces. However, polishing irregularly shaped scintillators, such as cylindrical and curved scintillators, or small-sized scintillators using conventional mechanical polishing techniques can be a considerable challenge [17–19]. Therefore, alternate versatile polishing methods are required for producing homogeneous crystal surfaces. Consequently, in a previous study, we evaluated the feasibility of using chemical polishing as a potential method for creating uniform ceramic scintillator surfaces and investigated the effect of chemical polishing time on the surface microstructure of a ceramic scintillator [20]. Because ceramic scintillators are often brittle and relatively translucent compared to their single-crystal (monocrystalline) counterparts, their use in radiation detection is typically limited to relatively thin detectors.
Chemical polishing of single crystals is a cost-effective polishing method, particularly when complex-shaped scintillators are involved. Slates et al. [11] reported that chemically polishing a lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO) scintillator by dipping in phosphoric acid increases its light output by 250% compared to unpolished crystals. Further, in terms of the depth-of-interaction resolution, an improved light collection can be achieved by etching an LSO scintillator for 5 min, as demonstrated by Shao et al. [15]. Moreover, surface etching or polishing using chemicals has been demonstrated to be an effective method for rearranging the surface topography of scintillators to obtain smooth surfaces for radiation detection applications [21, 22].
The present study was primarily performed to investigate the effect of chemical polishing of Ce:GAGG single crystals on their light outputs for different treatment times and crystal thicknesses. Tools such as photoluminescence (PL), energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and were used to assess the impact of surface modification on the scintillation properties of the crystal from the crystallographic perspective, and surface profiler to measure morphological changes.
Although several chemical etchants, such as acetic acid, nitric acid, citric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and phosphoric acid, are available for chemical polishing, we used phosphoric acid for treating the Ce:GAGG samples, similar to our previous study, because it is less reactive, cost effective, and easily available. The investigation of the correlation between the chemical polishing duration/temperature and Ce:GAGG crystal thickness is significant for radiation detection applications, where scintillators of various thicknesses are used, such as nuclear medicine.
Materials and methods
Sample preparation and polishing
To evaluate the spectral performance, we prepared 5 × 5 mm2 unpolished as-cut samples of varying thicknesses (2, 5, 10, and 20 mm) sawed from a larger (5 × 5 × 50 mm3) unpolished Ce:GAGG single-crystal block (TPS, Republic of Korea) grown by the Czochralski technique. The mechanically polished reference samples were prepared using a polisher (XP 8, Ted Pella) with alumina suspension (particle size: 1 μm). The chemically polished samples were fabricated by dipping the as-cut samples into a beaker containing phosphoric acid (85% in volume), placed in a silicone oil bath, to evaluate the effect of chemical polishing on the light output of the crystal samples [11, 12]. First, to investigate the correlation between the chemical polishing time and the etching rate, groups of 5 × 5 × 2 mm3 Ce:GAGG single-crystal samples were etched separately for 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min. As described before, the transmittance of the scintillation light to the photosensor is also dependent on the crystal thickness; thus, the Ce:GAGG single-crystal samples of 2, 5, 10, and 20 mm thicknesses were chemically polished for 30, 60, 90, and 120 min to compare their light outputs. The two polishing methods and spectral data acquisition process are illustrated in Fig 1. After the chemical polishing, each sample was cleaned with deionized water and dried in air. Next, the change in the weight of each sample was recorded to assess the weight loss due to chemical polishing.
Evaluation of spectral performances
Each sample was coupled to a PMT (Hamamatsu, H11934-100) using optical grease (BC-630, Saint-Gobain) to evaluate its spectral performance. The detector system was kept inside a dark box to prevent unwanted stray light and was irradiated by a 137Cs radioactive source. A reflector cap was formed by folding an enhanced specular reflector (3M) sheet to collect the light photons generated in the scintillator, and all the samples were covered with the same reflector to eliminate the dependence of the energy spectrum measurement on the type and thickness of the reflectors. A high voltage supply (Ortec 556, Ametek) was used to provide a fixed voltage of -900 V to the PMT, and the PMT output signal was sent to a digitizer (CAEN, DT5730). The acquired γ-ray waveforms were recorded in a computer for computation as follows: the signal peaks were initially identified by setting an arbitrary threshold. Then, from the located peak position, two points (limits of integration), each 1% from the baseline at the trail and leading edges, were located for integration. The integral of the waveforms was used to plot the energy spectrum, from which the energy resolution and relative light output of each sample were calculated at the position of the 662 keV photopeak of 137Cs via Gaussian fitting of the energy histogram.
Inspection of structural and optical properties
The surface changes were evaluated via roughness measurements using a surface profilometer (Bruker, DektakXT Stylus Profiler). For each sample, five different areas were selected on the 5 × 5 mm2 face of the sample, with a verified range of 2 μm, and the average values of the roughness and waviness were used for representing the final surface roughness and waviness. The microstructures of the Ce:GAGG sample surfaces were investigated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM; SEC’s SNE-4500M Tabletop SEM with 5-Axis Stage Control). For the light transmission measurements, a UV–Vis–NIR spectrometer (Cary 5000, Agilent Technologies) was used with the following parameters: wavelength range of 200–800 nm, scan rate of 600 nm/min, data resolution of 1 nm, and averaging time of 0.1 s. The photoluminescence (PL) spectra were obtained using a confocal Raman spectrometer (LabRam Aramis, Horriba Jovin Yvon) with 325 nm He–Cd laser excitation at room temperature. The generated PL is from the band-to-band excitonic recombination stimulated by the light, and it can be one of the evaluations of the crystallinity. The crystallinity and composition of the crystals were also assessed via X-ray diffraction (XRD; Smartlab, Rigaku) analysis in the range of 10°–90° using Cu-Kα radiation (λ = 1.54056 Å). The changes in the chemical composition after different surface treatments were measured by energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS; JEOL JSM-7610FPlus).
Results and discussion
Optical and luminescence measurements
PL measurement is a nondestructive method for investigating the electronic band excitation and relaxation processes in a medium [23]. Compared with a smooth polished surface, a rough scintillator surface contains several discontinuities in the crystallographic structure and optical barriers, such as grains, grain boundaries, and dangling bonds. These defects become the sources of non-radiative emissions, which degrade the scintillation performance of a scintillator [24]. Overall, the competition between these non-radiative and radiative processes determines the luminescence characteristics of a scintillator crystal. In other words, the PL intensity measurements can be an initial yet helpful method for revealing the post-treatment surface conditions.
The PL spectra shown in Fig 2 are indicative of the relationship between the surface treatment and the relative emission intensity [23, 25]. Evidently, the mechanically polished sample exhibited the highest PL intensity. In contrast, increasing the chemical polishing time resulted in a PL intensity enhancement up to 60 min; further treatment beyond this time did not contribute to the luminescence enhancement. Instead, a longer chemical polishing time, exceeding 60 min, led to an excessive scintillator weight (material) loss.
PL emission spectra emitted by the 5 × 5 × 2 mm3 Ce:GAGG single-crystal samples under the 325 nm He–Cd laser excitation: (a, black) as-cut, (b, blue) mechanically polished, (c)–(h) chemically polished for ((c, neon green), (d, orange), (e, magenta), (f, red), (g, green), (h, violet)), for 10, 20, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min.
To elucidate the effect of the chemical processing on the crystal samples, changes on the crystal surfaces after each surface treatment are summarized in Table 1. Chemical polishing produces morphological changes and alters the elemental composition of the crystals at the surface. In this study, when the samples were immersed in phosphoric acid, the atoms on the surface were selectively removed during the reaction with H3PO4, as evident from the results presented in Table 1. This reaction reduced the number of dangling bonds, thereby improving the luminescence properties of the scintillator. This is also visible in the SEM image where the surface acquires regular facets with chemical polishing (rather than random roughness) likely indicating selective removal of atoms through anisotropic orientation-dependent acid etching at the surface.
Each value denotes an average value obtained from measurements over five different spots on the samples.
Phase identification near the scintillator surface was performed using XRD to reveal the crystallinity (atomic structure) after the different surface treatments, as shown in Fig 3. The different polishing methods (both mechanical and chemical polishing) resulted in changes in the XRD peak intensities of Ce:GAGG single crystals. Specifically, the chemically and mechanically polished Ce:GAGG samples exhibited changes in XRD peaks compared to the unpolished sample. Considering PL and EDS data together, the crystallinity at the surface likely improved with chemical treatment.
XRD spectra of the Ce:GAGG samples after different surface treatments, showing peaks at: (a) ~ 32.5° and (b) ~ 60.4°.
The sample surfaces are visible in the SEM images shown in Fig 4. These images were acquired at a scale of 50 μm (horizontal field-of-view) to observe the changes after different surface treatments.
SEM images of the 5 × 5 × 2 mm3 Ce:GAGG single crystals: (a) as-cut, (b) mechanically polished, and (c)–(f) chemically polished for 10, 30, 60, and 120 min.
As shown in Fig 4(a), the surface inhomogeneities are evident before the mechanical and chemical treatments; however, they were smoothed out by the surface deformations that occurred after the surface treatments. When the immersion time was increased to 60 min, the Ce:GAGG crystal surface topography was rearranged, and the surface delineation was blurred, along with a decrease in the number of surface defects, as shown in Fig 4(c)–(4f).
Both qualitative and quantitative analyses of the surface roughness can reveal the effectiveness of the chemical polishing treatment, as shown in Fig 5 and Table 2. Evidently, the initial roughness of the as-cut sample was 928 nm, which decreased to 430 nm after chemical polishing for 60 min. In addition, the degree of chemical etching varied significantly with the polishing time, and there existed an optimal etching time that produced the desired surface for a higher light output.
Surface roughness measurements of the 5 × 5 mm2 Ce:GAGG face: (a) as-cut (black), (b) mechanically polished (blue), (c) chemically polished for 10 min (green), and (d) chemically polished for 60 min (red).
Energy spectrum evaluation
The relative light output and energy resolution of the 5 × 5 × 2 mm3 Ce:GAGG single-crystal samples for the different surface treatments are listed in Table 3. As expected from the SEM images shown in Fig 4, the mechanically polished sample showed the highest increase of 38.3% in the relative light output and an improvement of 3.4% (absolute value) in the energy resolution. For the chemically polished samples, the largest enhancement in the light output was acquired after chemical polishing for 60 min, beyond which a slight degradation in the scintillator performance was observed.
The 5 × 5 × 2 mm3 Ce:GAGG single crystals, chemically polished for 60 min, demonstrated a 33.1% increment in the relative light output and 2.4% improvement in the full width at half maximum (absolute value), i.e., energy resolution, as shown in Fig 6. The reason for why the longer chemical treatment time did not produce any substantial improvement in the light output was not perfectly clear; however, it is likely that the long duration chemical treatment led to an excessive change in the crystal surface morphology that was counteractive to light extraction.
Example of pulse height spectra of a 5 × 5 × 2 mm3 Ce:GAGG single-crystal sample, coupled to a PMT, before and after chemical polishing: (a) as-cut and (b) chemically polished for 60 min. A 137Cs radioactive source was used to obtain the pulse height spectra.
The scintillation light photons produced in a crystal are emitted isotropically, and thus, their propagation is affected by the surface roughness that determines the reflectivity and reflection angle. This, in turn, determines the number of reflections and the light passage travelled by a light photon before being detected by the photosensor [26]. This geometrical influence on the light output was evaluated by changing the thicknesses of the Ce:GAGG crystals to 2, 5, 10, and 20 mm, as shown in Fig 7, which shows the changes in the relative light outputs before (as-cut baseline) and after chemical polishing with various crystal thickness. In all the cases, a chemical polishing time of 60 min was optimal with respect to the light output. The slight decrease in the slope with the increasing crystal thickness corresponds to the geometrical effect [13]. In addition, after chemical polishing for 60 min, 6.3% of the crystal was etched away, whereas 11.2% of the crystal was etched away after 120 min of chemical polishing. This indicates that the optimal chemical polishing time for the Ce:GAGG crystal is 60 min under the aforementioned treatment conditions.
Conclusions
It is known that improving surface morphology (smoothing) can help improve light transportation to a photodetector (optical transportation property) [12, 20]. Moreover, surface treatment such as chemical or mechanical polishing can improve crystallinity through reduction of surface defects such as dangling bonds (luminescent property). While Both factors (morphology and crystallinity) can contribute to improving the light outputs of the samples, it is difficult to isolate the effects of the two factors.
In this study, we demonstrated the effect of surface treatment on the luminescence and optical properties of Ce:GAGG crystals, chemically polished with phosphoric acid, from the crystallographic perspective. The obtained PL spectra indicated that the luminescence properties were strongly related to the surface morphology and crystallographic structure of the crystals. The existence of surface defects such as dangling bonds on the rough surface resulted in surface recombination and subsequent non-radiative emissions, which reduced the PL signal intensity in rough as-cut crystals. However, chemical polishing for 60 min significantly reduced the number defects such as dangling bonds which suppressed the non-radiative processes and enhanced the light output.
Mechanical polishing produces the flattest surface leading to the highest light output. Chemical polishing was verified to produce a light output improvement comparable to that produced by mechanical polishing, with an optimal dipping time of 60 min in phosphoric acid at 190°C, for the Ce:GAGG crystals, and can be attributed to improvements in morphology and crystallinity. Dipping times beyond 90 min produced negligible improvement in the performance of the scintillator and caused an excessive material loss. These results indicate that chemical polishing can be an attractive alternative to mechanical polishing, particularly when complex scintillator shapes are involved or for large-scale operations.
Supporting information
S1 Fig.
SEM images (5 μm scale) of the 5 × 5 × 2 mm3 Ce:GAGG single crystals: (a) as-cut, (b) mechanically polished, and (c)–(f) chemically polished for 10, 30, 60, and 120 min.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281262.s001
(TIF)
S2 Fig.
SEM images (200 μm scale) of the 5 × 5 × 2 mm3 Ce:GAGG single crystals: (a) as-cut, (b) mechanically polished, and (c)–(f) chemically polished for 10, 30, 60, and 120 min.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281262.s002
(TIF)
References
- 1. Nikl M, Yoshikawa A. Recent R&D trends in inorganic single-crystal scintillator materials for radiation detection. Adv Opt Mater. 2015;3:463–481.
- 2.
Knoll Glenn G. Radiation detection and measurement. 4th ed.; 2010.
- 3. Petrosyan AG, Ovanesyan KL, Sargsyan RV, Shirinyan GO, Abler D, Auffray E, et al. Bridgman growth and site occupation in LuAG:Ce scintillator crystals. J Cryst Growth. 2010;312:3136–3142.
- 4. Yang X, Li H, Bi Q, Su L, Xu J. Growth of large-sized Ce:Y3Al5O12 (Ce:YAG) scintillation crystal by the temperature gradient technique (TGT). J Cryst Growth. 2009;311:3692–3696.
- 5. Kamada K, Yanagida T, Endo T, Tsutumi K, Usuki Y, Nikl M, et al. 2 inch diameter single crystal growth and scintillation properties of Ce:Gd3Al2Ga3O12, In J Cryst Growth. 2012;352:88–90.
- 6. Iwanowska J, Swiderski L, Szczesniak T, Sibczynski P, Moszynski M, Grodzicka M, et al. Performance of cerium-doped Gd3Al2Ga. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2013;712:34–40.
- 7. Kamada K, Shoji Y, Kochurikhin VV, Nagura A, Okumura S, Yamamoto S, et al. Single crystal growth of Ce:Gd3(Ga, Al)5O12 with various Mg concentration and their scintillation properties. J Cryst Growth. 2017;468:407–410.
- 8.
Rollett A, Humphreys F, Rohrer GS, Hatherly M. Recrystallization and related annealing phenomena. 2nd ed.; 2004.
- 9. Huber JS, Moses WW, Andreaco MS, Petterson O. An LSO scintillator array for a PET detector module with depth of interaction measurement. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2001;48:684–688.
- 10. Roncali E, Cherry SR. Simulation of light transport in scintillators based on 3D characterization of crystal surfaces. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:2185–2198. pmid:23475145
- 11. Slates R, Chatziioannou A, Fehlberg B, Lee T, Cherry S. Chemical polishing of LSO crystals to increase light output. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1018–1023.
- 12. Kurashige K, Kurata Y, Ishibashi H, Susa K. Surface polishing of GSO scintillator using chemical process. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1998;45:522–524.
- 13. Ishibashi H, Akiyama S, Ishii M. Effect of surface roughness and crystal shape on performance of bismuth germanate scintillators. Jpn J Appl Phys. 1986;25:1435–1438.
- 14. Derenzo SE, Riles JK. Monte Carlo calculations of the optical coupling between bismuth germanate crystals and photomultiplier tubes. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1982;29:191–195.
- 15. Shao Y, Meadors K, Silverman RW, Farrell R, Cirignano L, Grazioso R, et al. Dual APD array readout of LSO crystals: Optimization of crystal surface treatment. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49:649–654.
- 16. Pauwels K, Auffray E, Gundacker S, Knapitsch A, Lecoq P. Effect of aspect ratio on the light output of scintillators. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2012;59:2340–2345.
- 17. Sauer M, Fuchs A, Grabmayr P, Leypoldt J. The ring shaped plastic scintillator detector STAR for forward angle reconstruction. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A. 1996;378(1–2):143–148.
- 18. Efremenko Y, Fajt L, Febbraro M, Fischer F, Hayward C, Hodák R, et al. Use of poly (ethylene naphthalate) as a self-vetoing structural material. J Instrum. 2019;14(07):P07006.
- 19. Xie S, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Ying G, Huang Q, Xu J, et al. Evaluation of various scintillator materials in radiation detector design for positron emission tomography (PET). Crystals. 2020;10(10):869.
- 20. Park C, Kim S, Lee W, Kim C, Cho S, Yeom JY. Enhancement of the luminescent and optical properties of ceramic Ce: GAGG after surface treatment with phosphoric acid. Opt Express. 2021;29:751–760. pmid:33726305
- 21. Huber JS, Moses WW, Andreaco MS, Loope M, Melcher CL, Nutt R. Geometry and surface treatment dependence of the light collection from LSO crystals. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 1999;437:374–380.
- 22. Heinrichs U, Blume A, Bussmann N, Engels R, Kemmerling G, Weber S, et al. Statistical studies on the light output and energy resolution of small LSO single crystals with different surface treatments combined with various reflector materials. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2002;486:60–66.
- 23. Gfroerer TH. Photoluminescence in analysis of surfaces and interfaces, Encycl. Anal Chem. 2000;67:3810.
- 24. Chang RR, Iyer R, Lile DL. Surface characterization of InP using photoluminescence. J Appl Phys. 1987;61:1995–2004.
- 25. Abrams BL, Holloway PH. Role of the surface in luminescent processes. Chem Rev. 2004;104:5783–5801. pmid:15584688
- 26. Roncali E, Stockhoff M, Cherry SR. An integrated model of scintillator-reflector properties for advanced simulations of optical transport. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:4811–4830. pmid:28398905