research papers
Dual-polarity pulse processing and analysis for charge-loss correction in cadmium–zinc–telluride pixel detectors
aDipartimento di Fisica e Chimica, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Edificio 18, Palermo 90128, Italy, bIMEM/CNR, Parco Area delle Scienze 37/A, Parma 43100, Italy, cScience and Technology Facilities Council, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK, dB16 Beamline, Diamond Light Source, Fermi Avenue, Didcot, UK, and edue2lab s.r.l., Via Paolo Borsellino 2, Scandiano, Reggio Emilia 42019, Italy
*Correspondence e-mail: leonardo.abbene@unipa.it
Charge losses at the inter-pixel gap are typical drawbacks in cadmium–zinc–telluride (CZT) pixel detectors. In this work, an original technique able to correct charge losses occurring after the application of charge-sharing addition (CSA) is presented. The method, exploiting the strong relation between the energy after CSA and the beam position at the inter-pixel gap, allows the recovery of charge losses and improvements in energy resolution. Sub-millimetre CZT pixel detectors were investigated with both uncollimated radiation sources and collimated synchrotron X-rays, at energies below and above the K-shell absorption energy of the CZT material. The detectors are DC coupled to fast and low-noise charge-sensitive preamplifiers (PIXIE ASIC) and followed by a 16-channel digital readout electronics, performing multi-parameter analysis (event arrival time, pulse shape, pulse height). Induced-charge pulses with negative polarity were also observed in the waveforms from the charge-sensitive preamplifiers (CSPs) at energies >60 keV. The shape and the height of these pulses were analysed, and their role in the mitigation of charge losses in CZT pixel detectors. These activities are in the framework of an international collaboration on the development of energy-resolved photon-counting systems for spectroscopic X-ray imaging (5–140 keV).
Keywords: X-ray and gamma-ray detectors; CdZnTe detectors; charge sharing; charge losses; energy-resolved photon-counting detectors.
1. Introduction
In the last two decades, CdTe (cadmium telluride) and CZT (cadmium–zinc–telluride) arrays with sub-millimetre pixelization have been widely proposed for the development of room-temperature energy-resolved photon-counting (ERPC) systems (Abbene et al., 2015a; Barber et al., 2015; Del Sordo et al., 2004; Iwanczyk et al., 2009; Meuris et al., 2009; Seller et al., 2011; Szeles et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2007). ERPC systems, due to their single-photon-counting and energy-resolving capabilities, have opened new perspectives in several application areas such as synchrotron science, homeland security, medical imaging and astrophysics (Ballabriga et al., 2016; Green et al., 2016; Iniewski, 2014; Norlin et al., 2008; Taguchi & Iwanczyk, 2013; Tomita et al., 2004). As is well known (Barrett et al. 1995; Eskin et al., 1999; Mardor et al., 2001; He, 2001), CdTe/CZT detectors with pixelated anodes are characterized by electron-sensing properties (small pixel effect), which are very important to minimize the spectral distortions related to the poor hole transport properties of CdTe/CZT materials (Del Sordo et al., 2009; Owens & Peacock, 2004). This effect is due to the particular shape of the weighting potential of a collecting pixel: it is low near the cathode and monotonically rises rapidly close to the anode. Therefore, in agreement with the Shockley–Ramo theorem (He, 2001; Knoll, 2000; Ramo, 1939; Shockley, 1938), the charge induced on a collecting pixel, proportional to the weighting potential, is mostly contributed from the drift of charge carriers close to the pixel. By applying negative bias voltages at the cathode, these charge carriers are the electrons and pulses with positive polarity will be generated at the collecting pixel. Moreover, according to the small pixel effect, this unipolar effect is enhanced by decreasing the ratio between the pixel size and the detector thickness.
However, when small pixel arrays are used, the performance is strongly limited by the distortions caused by charge-sharing and cross-talk phenomena (Bolotnikov et al., 2005; Guerra et al., 2008). Generally, charge sharing refers to the splitting of the cloud generated from a single photon and collected by the neighbouring pixels. The area over which the charge cloud is deposited will depend upon charge diffusion, Coulomb repulsion, K-shell and Compton scattering.
Cross-talk events between neighbouring pixels can also be created by K-shell (side and back escape events), Compton scattering and by induced-charge pulses (Guerra et al., 2008; Brambilla et al., 2012; Bolotnikov et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2011). The induced-charge pulses (or transient pulses) are generated by the movement of the electron cloud over a collecting pixel that will also induce a small signal on the surrounding non-collecting pixels (weighting potential cross-talk). This is due to the particular shape of the weighting potential of a pixel detector, which is characterized by non-zero values even for interaction far from the collecting pixel (Barrett et al. 1995; Eskin et al., 1999; Abbene et al., 2018). The induced-charge pulses are fast pulses that in the absence of charge trapping will drop quickly to a zero value. The presence of charge trapping and the different interaction depths of the events can create transient pulses with positive or negative polarities (Budtz-Jørgensen & Kuvvetli, 2017; Eskin et al., 1999; Hong et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2011). The percentage of charge-sharing and cross-talk events can be very high even for thin detectors. Typically, 2 mm-thick CZT arrays with pixel pitches of 500 µm and 250 µm are characterized by charge-sharing percentages of 60% (500 µm pitch) and 80% (250 µm pitch) at 60 keV (Abbene et al., 2018). The effects of these phenomena on the response of CZT/CdTe pixel detectors have been studied extensively through both theoretical (Chen et al., 2002; Guerra et al., 2008; Iniewski et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2011) and experimental approaches (Brambilla et al., 2012, 2013; Bolotnikov et al., 2016; Frojdh et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2011; Kuvvetli & Budtz-Jørgensen, 2007; Meuris et al., 2009; Veale et al., 2014). Charge sharing and cross-talk can result in degradation of the spectroscopic performance of a pixel detector. These effects can include a worsening of the energy resolution, the introduction of low-energy tailing to photopeaks, the appearance of fluorescence and associated escape peaks and an increase of the low-energy background. They depend on both the physical (electric field, size and drift of charge cloud, of the inter-pixel gap) and the geometrical features (pixel size, inter-pixel gap, thickness) of the detectors.
Charge-sharing distortions are typically mitigated through the application of charge-sharing discrimination (CSD) techniques, i.e. by rejecting the pulses that are in temporal coincidence. These shared events can also be corrected through charge-sharing addition (CSA) techniques, which consist of summing the energies of the coincidence events (Allwork et al., 2012; Kuvvetli & Budtz-Jørgensen, 2007; Meuris et al., 2009; Veale et al., 2014). Unfortunately, the presence of charge losses at the inter-pixel gap has often limited the application of CSA in CdTe/CZT pixel detectors (Abbene et al., 2015a, 2018; Allwork et al., 2012; Brambilla et al., 2012; Bolotnikov et al., 1999, 2002a; Gaskin et al., 2003; Kalemci & Matteson, 2002; Kim et al., 2011; Kuvvetli & Budtz-Jørgensen, 2007). Several interpretations have been given about these charge losses, such as (i) the non-zero of the readout electronics (Kalemci & Matteson, 2002), the presence of electric field distortions at the inter-pixel gap (Bolotnikov et al., 1999, 2002a; Kuvvetli & Budtz-Jørgensen, 2007) and the simultaneous presence of both the collected and the induced-charge components in the shared pulses between adjacent pixels (Bolotnikov et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2011). A straightforward mitigation of this problem is often obtained by making the inter-pixel gap as small as possible (Kuvvetli & Budtz-Jørgensen, 2007) or by using steering grids between the pixels (Bolotnikov et al., 2002b; Kim et al., 2011). However, when biased grids are used, the presence of additional surface leakage currents (which increase the electronic noise) and the collecting of some fraction of charges by the same grids can further limit the performance of the detectors.
In this work, we will present an original technique able to correct charge losses at the inter-pixel gap and improve the energy resolution of energy spectra after the application of CSA. CZT pixel arrays, with different geometries and fabricated by various manufactures, were investigated. Charge-sharing measurements were performed with both uncollimated radiation sources (109Cd and 241Am sources) and collimated (10 µm × 10 µm) synchrotron X-rays, at energies below and above the K-shell absorption energy of the CZT material (26.7 keV, 9.7 keV and 31.8 keV for Cd, Zn and Te, respectively).
Induced-charge pulses with negative polarity were also observed in the output waveforms from charge-sensitive preamplifiers (CSPs) at energies >60 keV (57Co source). The shape and the height of these pulses were analysed and their role in the mitigation of charge losses in CZT pixel detectors.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Detectors
CZT pixel detectors with different anode arrays and thicknesses were fabricated by IMEM-CNR (Parma, Italy; https://www.imem.cnr.it) and due2lab s.r.l. (Reggio Emilia, Italy; https://www.due2lab.com). The IMEM detectors are based on CZT crystals (4.25 mm × 3.25 mm × 1 mm; 4.25 mm × 3.25 mm × 2 mm), grown by Redlen Technologies (Victoria BC, Canada; https://redlen.ca) with the travelling heater method (THM) technique (Awadalla et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2007, 2008). In the last decade, spectroscopic-grade CZT crystals with excellent transport properties (μeτe > 10−2 cm2 V−1; μhτh ≃ 10−5 cm2 V−1) have been routinely produced by Redlen. Gold electroless contacts were realized on both the anode and the cathode of the detectors. A 4% AuCl3 methanol solution, with a deposition time of 1 min at 25°C, was used (Benassi et al., 2017). The anode pattern was obtained by photolithography process and the passivation procedure was performed with an aqueous solution of H2O2 at 10% for 5 min, in order to reduce the surface leakage currents (Marchini et al., 2009). CZT detectors with gold electroless contacts are routinely fabricated at IMEM-CNR and characterized by low leakage currents at room temperature (<5 nA cm−2 at 1000 V cm−1) (Abbene et al., 2016, 2017; Zappettini et al., 2009). As shown in Fig. 1, the anode surface is characterized by four arrays of 3 × 3 pixels with pixel pitches of 500 and 250 µm, surrounded by a guard-ring electrode, while the cathode is a planar electrode covering the detector surface. The width of the inter-pixel gaps for all arrays is equal to 50 µm.
For comparison, a CZT pixel detector (REDLEN detector), fabricated by Redlen Technologies, with the same cathode and anode layout was also investigated. The detector is based on a novel high-flux CZT crystal, recently produced by Redlen Technologies, characterized by enhanced hole charge transport properties (μeτe > 10−3 cm2 V−1; μhτh ≃ 10−4 cm2 V−1) (Iniewski, 2016; Thomas et al., 2017). As is well known, improvements in the charge transport properties of the holes are very important to mitigate the high-flux radiation-induced polarization phenomena in CZT pixel detectors (Abbene et al., 2016; Bale & Szeles, 2008; Sellin et al., 2010).
2.2. Electronics
The detectors are DC coupled to a fast and low-noise ASIC (PIXIE ASIC), developed at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (Didcot, UK) (Allwork et al., 2012; Veale et al., 2011). The PIXIE ASIC consists of four arrays of 3 × 3 pixels, flip-chip bonded directly to the detector pixels. The active circuitry of each pixel is a charge-sensitive preamplifier CSP (with no shaping filtering) and an output buffer which is multiplexed directly off the chip. The nine outputs from each of the four arrays are multiplexed onto a common nine-track analogue bus which is driven off chip by output buffers. The outputs of all nine pixels of the selected array are read out simultaneously allowing the analysis of the height and the shape of the pulses. The pulses are characterized by rise times of less than 60 ns and a noise (ENC) < 80 electrons. The bonding process was performed at RAL by using low-temperature curing (<150°C) silver-loaded epoxy and gold stud bonding technique (Schneider et al., 2015).
The output waveforms from the PIXIE ASIC are digitized and processed on-line by a 16-channel digital electronics, developed at DiFC of University of Palermo (Italy) (Abbene et al., 2013a,b, 2015b; Gerardi & Abbene, 2014). The digital electronics are based on commercial digitizers (DT5724, 16-bit, 100 MS s−1, CAEN SpA, Italy; https://www.caen.it), where an original firmware was uploaded (Abbene et al., 2015b; Gerardi & Abbene, 2014). A detailed description of the digital firmware is reported in our previous works (Abbene et al., 2015b; Gerardi & Abbene, 2014). The digital analysis starts with the shaping of the output waveform from the detector-ASIC by using the classical single delay line (SDL) shaping technique (Knoll, 2000). SDL shaping is obtained by subtracting from the original pulse its delayed and attenuated fraction. The typical shape of the SDL pulses is shown in Fig. 2. Generally, the SDL shaping is characterized by the following main features: (i) the time width of each SDL shaped pulse is well defined (delay time + CSP peaking time), (ii) if the delay time is greater than the peaking time of the CSP pulse, the SDL shaping also preserves the leading edge (pulse height and peaking time) of each CSP pulse, and (iii) fine pole-zero cancellation (Knoll, 2000) is allowed by selecting the correct attenuation fraction (which is related to the constant of the CSP pulses). To increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) we also performed a further shaping with a trapezoidal filtering (Fig. 2). Generally, the digital electronics are able to provide different results through several working modes (Gerardi & Abbene, 2014). In this work, we used some working modes with the following results:
(i) The arrival time, the height (i.e. the photon energy) and time width (i.e. the pulse shape) of the pulses after SDL and trapezoidal shaping, presented in list-mode.
(ii) The CSP output waveform (oscilloscope mode), helpful to check the polarity of the waveform, ADC saturation and the shape of the pulses.
(iii) The SDL output waveform (oscilloscope mode), i.e. the pulses after SDL shaping, helpful to check the pole-zero cancellation (Knoll, 2000) and to set the amplitude threshold for pulse detection.
(iv) A sequence of time windows (termed `snapshots') of the CSP output waveform; each snapshot contains a single CSP pulse, together with the related arrival time, and it is centred on each pulse peak position. This working mode is very helpful to check the shape of the CSP output pulses in temporal coincidence and also perform further off-line analysis.
2.3. Experimental procedures
The detectors were exposed, through the cathode side, to uncollimated X-ray and gamma-ray calibration sources (109Cd: 22.1, 24.9 and 88.1 keV; 241Am: 59.5 and 26.3 keV; 57Co: 122.1 and 136.5 keV). The 57Co energy spectra also feature the W fluorescent lines produced in the tungsten source backing (Kα1 = 59.3 keV, Kα2 = 58.0 keV, Kβ1 = 67.2 keV, Kβ3 = 66.9 keV). The source holders shield the 14 keV gamma line of the 57Co source and the Np L X-ray lines of the 241Am source.
Micro-beam characterization of the detectors was carried out on the B16 test beamline at the Diamond Light Source synchrotron (Didcot, UK; https://www.diamond.ac.uk/Beamlines/Materials/B16). For these measurements, the storage ring was operated at 3 GeV with a current of 250 mA. Unfocused monochromatic X-rays, below (25 keV) and above (40 keV) the K-shell absorption energy of the CZT material, were provided using a multi-layer monochromator. A 10 µm × 10 µm collimated beam was produced using a set of JJ-Slits with tungsten carbide blades. Two sets of slits were used, one at the beam entrance which was used to define the beam size and another set close to the detector to clean up any scattered X-rays. The detector system was mounted on a versatile optics table which can be moved in X, Y and Z with a precision of <1 µm. Line scans were automated using a TTL trigger generated by the B16 control system after each 10 µm step that began the data acquisition by the digitizers. Fig. 3 shows an overview of the experimental set-up at the beamline B16.
3. Measurements with uncollimated radiation sources
3.1. Spectroscopic performance of the detectors
In this section, we will present an overview of the spectroscopic response of the detectors to uncollimated 109Cd, 241Am and 57Co sources. To optimize the energy resolution and avoid the effects of ballistic deficit (Knoll, 2000), we used a SDL shaping with a delay time of 700 ns (Fig. 2). Fig. 4 shows the measured 109Cd and 241Am spectra of pixel 9 of array 3 (pixel pitch of 500 µm) for the 2 mm-thick IMEM detector. All detectors were investigated with a moderate cooling (T = 2°C) to ensure more time stability of both the detectors and the electronics, especially for long time measurements. Room-temperature measurements were also performed but showed an associated degradation of the spectroscopic performance (percentage FWHM degradation of about 8%). As shown in Fig. 4(b), the charge-sharing effects are clearly visible in the spectra: the presence of (i) tailing in the low-energy side of the main energy peak, (ii) low-energy background and (iii) fluorescent peaks (e.g. the Cd Kα1 line of 23.2 keV). The energy resolution (FWHM) values for the large and small arrays of all detectors are reported in Table 1.
|
Generally, the two 2 mm-thick detectors (IMEM and REDLEN detectors) are characterized by similar performance. At low and medium energies (22.1 and 59.5 keV), the pixels of the large array (array 3; pixel pitch of 500 µm) show similar energy resolution values for both 1 and 2 mm-thick detectors. At low energy, the energy resolution is mainly dominated by the electronic noise. Degradation of the energy resolution characterizes the pixels of the small array (array 0; pixel pitch of 250 µm), especially for the 2 mm-thick detector. This, despite the better unipolar behaviour of the weighting potential of the small array (small pixel effect), is due to the effects of charge sharing in the small array, which is characterized by a higher ratio between the gap area and the pixel area (G/A ratio). At high energy (122.1 keV), the signals reflect a greater contribution from the holes, and the energy spectra are characterized by the typical hole charge trapping effects, such as the degradation of energy resolution and tailing (Del Sordo et al., 2009); at this energy, due to the enhanced small pixel effect (better unipolar properties, i.e. smaller hole contribution in the signals), the pixels of the large array of the 2 mm-thick detectors are characterized by better energy resolution than the thin detector one, while the pixels of the small array showed a slight worsening at 122.1 keV with respect to the thin detector, due to the effects of charge sharing.
3.2. Charge-sharing measurements
Charge-shared events were investigated through the time coincidence analysis (TCA). In particular, we measured the events of the central pixel 5 of each array that are in temporal coincidence with the adjacent pixels, within selected coincidence time windows (CTWs). The digital electronics allow fine TCA with CTWs up to 10 ns. Table 2 summarizes the percentages of charge-shared events for the small and large arrays of all detectors. We used an of 3 keV, representing the optimum value for no noise detection, and a CTW of 450 ns that allows a full detection of the shared events. Since the 2 mm-thick detectors (IMEM and REDLEN) have similar performance and sharing percentage values, we preferred to present in Table 2 the results for the IMEM detectors (1 mm- and 2 mm-thick detectors), at the same electric field (2500 V cm−1) and under the optimum electric field conditions (2500 V cm−1 and 5000 V cm−1 for the 1 mm- and 2 mm-thick detectors, respectively). We present the results at energies below (109Cd) and above (241Am) the K-shell absorption energy of the CZT material.
|
Fig. 5(a) shows the number of shared events of the central pixel with the eight adjacent pixels at different CTWs (2 mm-thick REDLEN detector). Almost all shared events (>94%) are detected within a CTW of 50 ns and the saturation of the curves clearly shows the full detection of the shared events within the investigated CTW range. Due to the higher G/A ratio, the small array (array 0) is characterized by more charge-sharing events; moreover, the difference in charge sharing between the energies below (109Cd) and above (241Am) the K-shell absorption energy of the CZT material points out the critical role of the Fluorescent X-rays broaden the initial electron cloud and can create cross-talk events in neighbouring pixels (side and back escape events). The improvements in the energy spectrum after CSD are shown in Fig. 5(b). In particular, three different spectra are presented for the central pixel: (i) the raw spectrum after energy calibration (black line), (ii) the spectrum of the coincidence events with all eight adjacent pixels (red line) and (iii) the spectrum after CSD (blue line). The strong reduction of the shared events in the spectrum after CSD is clearly visible. The low-energy side of the raw spectrum perfectly coincides with the spectrum of the coincidence events and the fluorescent X-rays are deleted after CSD.
Some escape peaks are present in the 241Am spectra even after CSD, due to the back escape events (e.g. from the cathode side) and fluorescence events absorbed beyond the adjacent pixels (i.e. absorbed below the guard-ring electrode). With the (3 keV) used in the sharing detection, no improvements in the energy resolution of the main peaks were obtained after CSD.
To recover the shared events, rejected after CSD, we applied the CSA technique. The energy (ECSA) recovered after CSA is obtained by summing the energies of the coincidence events between two adjacent pixels (multiplicity m = 2). The multiplicity m is defined as the number of pixels detecting an event within the selected CTW, with an energy greater than the of 3 keV. Each of the detectors tested demonstrated an increase in FWHM in the energy spectra after CSA. Moreover, a reduction in the position of the peak centroid was also observed, related to charge losses occurring in the inter-pixel gap. Fig. 6 shows the energy spectra after CSA, related to the coincidence events between two adjacent pixels (pixels 5 and 8 of the 500 µm array), for the 1 mm- and 2 mm-thick detectors. At energy (22.1 keV) below the K-shell absorption energy of the CZT material energy, all detectors and arrays showed a charge loss of about 2 keV; at higher energy (60 keV), where charge sharing is increased by charge losses are more severe (4 keV). Moreover, these losses are enhanced for the pixels of the small array (6 keV). We also observed that the charge loss depends on the bias voltage; e.g. the pixels of the large arrays of the 2 mm-thick detectors are characterized by a charge loss of 7 keV at 500 V (4 keV at 1000 V). This last result strengthens the idea that charge losses after CSA are mainly related to the electron trapping in the inter-pixel region due to the presence of lower electric field.
Fig. 7 also shows the energy ECSA after CSA versus the charge-sharing ratio R, between the two pixels. The charge-sharing ratio R is typically used to provide information about the interaction position of the shared events and is generally calculated from the ratio between the energy of the pixel events, as follows: R = (pixel 5 − pixel 8)/(pixel 5 + pixel 8). The curvature shows that the shared events do not have 100% efficient charge collection and that charge losses are more severe for those events for which R is zero, theoretically related to events stopped at the centre of the inter-pixel gap. The two kinks at R = ±0.22 are due to the escape of the fluorescent X-rays of the CZT material. In the distribution shown in Fig. 7, the majority of interactions have combined energies of no more than 60 keV. This demonstrates that the majority of events are true charge-shared events. False shared events can be created by photons interacting simultaneously on the neighbouring pixels or by induced-charge pulses with positive polarity (Bolotnikov et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2011).
4. Microscale line scanning with collimated synchrotron X-rays
Collimated synchrotron X-rays, at the B16 beamline of Diamond Light Source, were used to investigate charge-sharing and charge-loss effects on a sub-pixel level. The results of a microscale line scanning between the centres of two adjacent pixels (pixels 5 and 8) are presented. We used collimated (10 µm × 10 µm) synchrotron X-ray beams with energies below (25 keV) and above (40 keV) the K-shell absorption energy of CZT material, with position steps of 10 µm. During the line scanning between the two pixels, we acquired, at each beam position, the data from all nine pixels of the investigated array. Fig. 8 shows an overview of the variation of the photopeak centroid of the main peak (25 keV) and the multiplicity m with changing beam position for the 1 mm- and 2 mm-thick detectors.
Centroid variations are observed in a region of 100 µm that is centred on the middle of the inter-pixel region. For both of the detectors tested, coincidence events (m > 1) were only detected at beam positions within 100 µm of the centre of the inter-pixel region. At the centre of the inter-pixel gap, 100% of events were shared between the two pixels.
At 40 keV (Fig. 9), coincidence events were detected in a wider region, even for beam positions near the centre of the pixels. This is due to the propagation of fluorescent X-rays that increases the initial charge cloud and creates cross-talk events. The attenuation lengths of the Cd Kα and Cd Kβ X-rays are 116 µm and 161 µm, respectively (Abbene et al., 2018; Allwork et al., 2012). At the centre of the inter-pixel gap, 96% of the events are shared between pixels 5 and 8 (m = 2), while 4% with other pixels (m > 2). As shown in the literature (Bolotnikov et al., 2016; Montémont et al., 2014), the energy and the multiplicity of the coincidence events can be helpful to measure the locations of interaction points with sub-pixel spatial resolution.
The presence of charge losses after CSA was also confirmed with collimated beams (10 µm × 10 µm). The energy spectra after CSA for a beam position at the centre of the inter-pixel gap are shown in Fig. 10. We measured the CSA spectra, between pixels 5 and 8, for the large and the small arrays of the 2 mm-thick REDLEN detector. The main peaks are both widened and shifted to lower energies confirming the presence of charge losses at the inter-pixel gap. The presence of charge losses at 25 keV allows us to exclude the non-zero of the electronics as the possible cause of charge losses.
We also presented, at the same beam position, the two-dimensional scatter plot of the energy ECSA after CSA versus the charge-sharing ratio R (Fig. 11). The spreading of the ratio R at this collimated beam position is also shown. The R distribution at 40 keV (Fig. 11d) clearly shows the presence of secondary peaks, due to the presence of fluorescent X-rays. Fig. 12 shows the relationship between the charge-sharing ratio R and the real interaction position within the inter-pixel gap. To a first-order approximation, a linear function can be used to define the position of the beams in the inter-pixel gap.
5. Charge-loss correction at the inter-pixel gap
In this section, we will present an original technique able to correct the charge losses after CSA. The technique exploits the strong relation between the energy ECSA after CSA and the charge-sharing ratio R (Figs. 7 and 11). The relation between the energy ECSA and R was modelled through the following equation:
where E is the true photon energy and ΔECSA(0) = E − ECSA(0) is the energy lost at the centre of the inter-pixel gap (R = 0). Fig. 13(a) shows the energy ECSA at different R values. Each R value corresponds to a real beam position (10 µm × 10 µm) within the inter-pixel gap with a position step of 10 µm. The energy ECSA was calculated as the centroid of the main photopeak of each spectrum obtained after CSA. The curves, obtained at three different energies, are well modelled by equation (1). Moreover, it is interesting to note the linear behaviour of the energy lost ΔECSA(0) with the true energy E, as shown in Fig. 13(b):
where k1 and k2 are the slope and the y-intercept of the linear function. Combining (1) and (2) yields
By using (3) it is possible to correct the charge losses after CSA through the measurement of the bi-parametric distribution ECSA − R and the estimation of the constants k1 and k2, which can be obtained by a preliminary calibration procedure [equations (1) and (2)]. We stress that this correction does not depend on the photon energy but it is related to the physical and geometrical characteristics of the inter-pixel gap, in particular the ratio between the gap area and the pixel area. Indeed, we obtained, for the pixels of a fixed array the same values of k1 and k2 for all detectors (500 µm array: k1 = 0.009 keV and k2 = 0.10 keV−1; 250 µm array: k1 = 0.015 keV and k2 = 0.14 keV−1). Fig. 14 clearly shows the recovery of the charge losses after CSA and improvements in the energy resolution (collimated beam at the centre of the inter-pixel gap).
We also applied this technique for uncollimated irradiation. Fig. 15 shows the good agreement between the ECSA − R points with equation (1) and the energy spectra after CSA (black line) and after correction with equation (3) (red line) to the uncollimated 109Cd source. The 241Am spectra are also presented for the small and the large arrays (Fig. 16).
6. Analysis of negative pulses for charge-loss correction
Measurements at the energies of the 57Co source highlighted the presence of pulses with opposite polarity (negative polarity), with respect to standard pulses (positive polarity), in the output CSP waveforms of all detectors. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 17, these events were always detected in temporal coincidence with positive pulses of adjacent pixels. In particular, Fig. 17 shows the temporal coincidence of a positive pulse of the central pixel with the negative pulses of three adjacent pixels. The appearance of negative pulses in CZT pixel detectors was already predicted and observed in the past (Budtz-Jørgensen & Kuvvetli, 2017; Eskin et al., 1999; Hong et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2011). The negative pulses are induced-charge pulses produced by non-collecting pixels and they are mainly related to photon interactions near the pixel boundary and at interaction depths close to the pixel plane (i.e. the pixelated anode). As is well known, the output detector pulses are typically classified as collected- and induced-charge pulses (or transient pulses). The collected-charge pulses are generated by the charge carriers actually collected by a pixel, while the induced-charge pulses are generated by the induced charge, collected by another pixel. The induced-charge pulses are fast pulses that in the absence of charge trapping will drop quickly to a zero value. For interactions just outside the pixel boundary and at depths near the pixelated anode, the collecting pixel will give a positive collected-charge pulse, which will be in temporal coincidence with a negative induced-charge pulse generated by the adjacent pixel. The monotonic weighting potential of the collecting pixel will give a positive pulse, even if characterized by charge losses; this is due to the effects of hole trapping that is more severe for interaction depths near the pixel (Barrett et al. 1995; Eskin et al., 1999; Mardor et al., 2001; He, 2001); whereas the adjacent pixel (i.e. the non-collecting pixel), due to the non-monotonic behaviour of the weighting potential (Abbene et al., 2018; Eskin et al., 1999) and to the hole trapping, can give a fast transient pulse with negative polarity.
Two main features characterize the negative pulses; first, they are characterized by a different shape than the positive ones, as shown in Fig. 17; second, they are in temporal coincidence with positive pulses characterized by charge losses due to hole trapping.
Concerning the first feature, the different shape (i.e. the different decay time) of the negative pulses can produce distortions after the shaping operation, as shown in Fig. 18. By selecting the correct value of the the positive SDL shaped pulse is characterized by no undershoot at the baseline, confirming a proper application of the pole-zero cancellation technique; whereas the negative pulse after the SDL shaping, applied with the same constant of the positive pulses, presents a positive overshoot at the baseline. This positive overshoot can be detected as a positive event that is in temporal coincidence with another positive pulse of an adjacent pixel, i.e. producing as a false detection of a shared event. The detection of these false shared events will distort the statistics of the shared events and the application of CSA. Moreover, the presence of these positive overshoots can distort the correct estimation of the baseline, especially at high rates.
The second feature of the negative pulses was used to try to correct the positive pulses that suffer from incomplete charge collection. The coincidence measurements showed that the positive pulses of the central pixel of the large array are in temporal coincidence with the negative pulses of the eight adjacent pixels with percentages of 5% and 16% for the 2 mm- and 1 mm-thick detectors, respectively (energy threshold of 7 keV). In particular, Fig. 19(a) shows three different energy spectra of the positive events of the central pixel: the raw spectrum of the central pixel 5 (black line), the spectrum of the coincidence events with the negative pulses of the adjacent pixels (red line) and after charge-sharing discrimination (CSD) (blue line). It is clearly visible as the positive pulses, in temporal coincidence with the negative pulses, are positioned in the tailing of the 122 keV photopeak, confirming that they suffer from charge losses. This result is also confirmed by the high values of the time widths of the coincidence positive pulses (SDL shaped pulses), reflecting the hole trapping influence.
An interesting result was obtained by summing the energy of the coincidence positive pulses with the absolute value of the energy of the negative pulses (events with multiplicity m = 2). After the negative induced addition (NIA), the charge losses were recovered, as shown in Fig. 20, for both the 1 mm- and 2 mm-thick detectors. It means that the double coincidences between the positive and negative pulses occur at interaction positions where the charge deficit of the positive pulse, due to the hole trapping, is the same of the absolute height of the negative pulse. Further measurements at higher energies could be helpful to understand these last results.
7. Conclusions
Charge-sharing investigations were performed in CZT pixel detectors, fabricated by different manufacturers (Redlen Technologies and IMEM-CNR). The detectors with sub-millimetre pixels (pixel pitches of 500 and 250 µm) allow high-bias voltage operation (5000 V cm−1) and good energy resolution (3% and 2% FWHM at 60 and 122 keV, respectively) with a moderate cooling (T = 2°C). Charge losses after the application of CSA were observed in all detectors with both collimated and uncollimated X-ray beams, in particular:
(i) at energies (22.1 keV; uncollimated X-ray source) below the K-shell absorption energy of the CZT material, all detectors and arrays showed the same charge losses of about 2 keV;
(ii) at higher energies (60 keV; uncollimated X-ray source), where charge sharing is increased by i.e. by increasing the ratio between the gap area and the pixel area;
charge losses are more severe (4 keV); moreover, these losses are enhanced for the pixels of the small array (6 keV),(iii) charge losses depend on the bias voltage: e.g. the pixels of the large arrays of the 2 mm-thick detectors are characterized by a charge loss of 7 keV at 500 V and 4 keV at 1000 V (60 keV; uncollimated X-ray source);
(iv) the voltage dependence of charge losses and their presence, even for collimated beams (10 µm × 10 µm) at the centre of the inter-pixel region, strengthen the idea that charge losses are mainly related to the electron trapping in the inter-pixel region due to the presence of lower electric field.
A novel technique able to correct the charge losses after CSA, for both uncollimated and collimated irradiations, was presented. This approach, exploiting the strong relation between the energy ECSA after CSA and the charge-sharing ratio R, allows the recovery of charge losses and improvements in energy resolution.
An interesting result was also obtained through the analysis of induced-charge pulses with negative polarity created at high energies (57Co source). In particular, by summing the absolute value of the energy of the negative pulses with the energy of the coincidence positive pulses (events with multiplicity m = 2), it is possible to correct the charge deficit due to hole trapping. We also highlighted the importance of the detection of the negative pulses in order to prevent the presence of false shared events and baseline shifts.
Further measurements at energies higher than 122 keV (e.g. with collimated synchrotron X-ray beams) are foreseen to better understand the results obtained with negative pulses.
Moreover, we foresee to apply the novel correction technique for charge losses on detectors with different electrode layouts (e.g. strips, drift-strips) and at different conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the technical staff of the laboratory at DiFC of Palermo, Mr Marcello Mirabello for his technical assistance. The authors would also like to acknowledge the technical staff of the interconnect team who performed the bonding of detectors at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Dr Andreas Schneider and Mr Paul Booker.
Funding information
This work was supported by the Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research (MIUR) under PRIN Project No. 2012WM9MEP, by the Science & Technology Facilities Council (UK) under the Centre for Instrumentation Sensors Managed Programme 2016–2017 and by the Diamond Light Source (proposal MT15047-1).
References
Abbene, L. & Gerardi, G. (2015b). J. Synchrotron Rad. 22, 1190–1201. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Abbene, L., Gerardi, G. & Principato, F. (2013a). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 730, 124–128. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Abbene, L., Gerardi, G. & Principato, F. (2015a). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 777, 54–62. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Abbene, L., Gerardi, G., Raso, G., Principato, F., Zambelli, N., Benassi, G., Bettelli, M. & Zappettini, A. (2017). J. Synchrotron Rad. 24, 429–438. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Abbene, L., Gerardi, G., Turturici, A. A., Del Sordo, S. & Principato, F. (2013b). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 730, 135–140. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Abbene, L., Gerardi, G., Turturici, A. A., Raso, G., Benassi, G., Bettelli, M., Zambelli, N., Zappettini, A. & Principato, F. (2016). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 835, 1–12. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Abbene, L., Principato, F., Gerardi, G., Bettelli, M., Seller, P., Veale, M. C., Zambelli, N., Benassi, G. & Zappettini, A. (2018). J. Synchrotron Rad. 25, 257–271. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Allwork, C., Kitou, D., Chaudhuri, S., Sellin, P. J., Seller, P., Veale, M. C., Tartoni, N. & Veeramani, P. (2012). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 59, 1563–1568. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Awadalla, S. A., Al-Grafi, M. & Iniewski, K. (2014). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 764, 193–197. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Bale, D. S. & Szeles, C. (2008). Phys. Rev. B, 77, 035205. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Ballabriga, R., Alozy, J., Campbell, M., Frojdh, E., Heijne, E. H. M., Koenig, T., Llopart, X., Marchal, J., Pennicard, D., Poikela, T., Tlustos, L., Valerio, P., Wong, W. & Zuber, M. (2016). J. Instrum. 11, P01007. Google Scholar
Barber, W. C., Wessel, J. C., Nygard, E. & Iwanczyk, J. S. (2015). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 784, 531–537. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Barrett, H. H., Eskin, J. D. & Barber, H. B. (1995). Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 156–159. CrossRef Web of Science Google Scholar
Benassi, G., Nasi, L., Bettelli, M., Zambelli, N., Calestani, D. & Zappettini, A. (2017). J. Instrum. 12, P02018. Google Scholar
Bolotnikov, A. E., Bale, D., Butcher, J., Camarda, G. S., Cui, Y., De Geronimo, G., Fried, J., Hossain, A., Kim, K. H., Marshall, M., Soldner, S., Petryk, M., Prokesch, M., Vernon, E., Yang, G. & James, R. B. (2014). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 61, 787–792. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Bolotnikov, A. E., Boggs, S. E., Hubert Chen, C. M., Cook, W. R., Harrison, F. A. & Schindler, S. M. (2002a). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 482, 395–407. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Bolotnikov, A. E., Camarda, G. S., Cui, Y., De Geronimo, G., Eger, J., Emerick, A., Fried, J., Hossain, A., Roy, U., Salwen, C., Soldner, S., Vernon, E., Yang, G. & James, R. B. (2016). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 805, 41–54. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Bolotnikov, A. E., Camarda, G. C., Wright, G. W. & James, R. B. (2005). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 52, 589–598. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Bolotnikov, A. E., Cook, W. R., Harrison, F. A., Wong, A.-S., Schindler, S. M. & Eichelberger, A. C. (1999). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 432, 326–331. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Bolotnikov, A. E., Cook, W. R., Harrison, F. A., Wong, A.-S., Schindler, S. M. & Eichelberger, A. C. (2002b). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 49, 270–276. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Brambilla, A., Ouvrier-Buffet, P., Gonon, G., Rinkel, J., Moulin, V., Boudou, C. & Verger, L. (2013). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 60, 408–415. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Brambilla, A., Ouvrier-Buffet, P., Rinkel, J., Gonon, G., Boudou, C. & Verger, L. (2012). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 59, 1552–1558. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Budtz-Jørgensen, C. & Kuvvetli, I. (2017). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 64, 1611–1618. Google Scholar
Chen, C. M. H., Boggs, S. E., Bolotnikov, A. E., Cook, W. R., Harrison, F. A. & Schindler, S. M. (2002). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 49, 270–276. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Chen, H., Awadalla, S. A., Iniewski, K., Lu, P. H., Harris, F., Mackenzie, J., Hasanen, T., Chen, W., Redden, R., Bindley, G., Kuvvetli, I., Budtz-Jørgensen, C., Luke, P., Amman, M., Lee, J. S., Bolotnikov, A. E., Camarda, G. S., Cui, Y., Hossain, A. & James, R. B. (2008). J. Appl. Phys. 103, 014903. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Chen, H., Awadalla, S. A., Mackenzie, J., Redden, R., Bindley, G., Bolotnikov, A. E., Camarda, G. S., Carini, G. & James, R. B. (2007). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 54, 811–816. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Del Sordo, S., Abbene, L., Caroli, E., Mancini, A. M., Zappettini, A. & Ubertini, P. (2009). Sensors, 9, 3491–3526. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Del Sordo, S., Strazzeri, M., Agnetta, G., Biondo, B., Celi, F., Giarrusso, S., Mangano, A., Russo, F., Caroli, E., Donati, A., Schiavone, F., Stephen, J. B., Ventura, G., Abbene, L., Fauci, F., Raso, G. & Pareschi, G. (2004). Nuovo Cimento, 119B, 257–270. Google Scholar
Devanathan, R., Corrales, L. R., Gao, F. & Weber, W. J. (2006). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 565, 637–649. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Eskin, J. D., Barrett, H. H. & Barber, H. B. (1999). J. Appl. Phys. 85, 647–659. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Frojdh, E., Norlin, B., Thungstrom, G. & Fröjdh, C. (2011). J. Instrum. 6, P02012. Google Scholar
Gaskin, J. A., Sharma, D. P. & Ramsey, B. D. (2003). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 505, 122–125. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Gerardi, G. & Abbene, L. (2014). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 768, 46–54. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Green, F. H., Veale, M. C., Wilson, M. D., Seller, P., Scuffham, J. & Pani, S. (2016). Phys. Med. Biol. 61, 7246–7262. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Guerra, P., Santos, A. & Darambara, D. G. (2008). Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 1099–1113. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
He, Z. (2001). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 463, 250–267. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Hong, J., Grindlay, J. E., Chammas, N., Copete, A., Baker, R. G., Barthelmy, S. D., Gehrels, N., Cook, W. R., Burnham, J. A., Harrison, F. A., Collins, J. & Craig, W. W. (2006). Proc. SPIE, 6319, 63190S. CrossRef Google Scholar
Iniewski, K. (2014). J. Instrum. 9, C11001. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Iniewski, K. (2016). J. Instrum. 11, C12034. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Iniewski, K., Chen, H., Bindley, G., Kuvvetli, I. & Budtz-Jorgensen, C. (2007). IEEE Nucl. Sci. Symp. Conf. Rec. 4437135, 4608–4611. Google Scholar
Iwanczyk, J., Nygård, E., Meirav, O., Arenson, J., Barber, W. C., Hartsough, N. E., Malakhov, N. & Wessel, J. C. (2009). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 56, 535–542. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Kalemci, E. & Matteson, J. L. (2002). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 478, 527–537. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Kim, J. C., Anderson, S. E., Kaye, W., Zhang, F., Zhu, Y., Kaye, S. J. & He, Z. (2011). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 654, 233–243. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Knoll, G. F. (2000). Radiation Detection and Measurement, ch. 4. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Google Scholar
Kuvvetli, I. & Budtz-Jørgensen, C. B. (2005). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 52, 1975–1981. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Kuvvetli, I. & Budtz-Jørgensen, C. B. (2007). IEEE Nucl. Sci. Symp. Conf. Rec. 3, 2252–2257. Google Scholar
Marchini, L., Zappettini, A., Gombia, E., Mosca, R., Lanata, M. & Pavesi, M. (2009). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 56, 1823–1826. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Mardor, I., Shor, A. & Eisen, Y. (2001). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 48, 1033–1040. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Meuris, A., Limousin, O. & Blondel, C. (2009). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 610, 294–297. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Montémont, G., Lux, S., Monnet, O., Stanchina, S. & Verger, L. (2014). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 61, 2559–2566. Google Scholar
Norlin, B., Frojdh, C., Thungstrom, G. & Greiffenberg, D. (2008). IEEE Nucl. Sci. Symp. Conf. Rec. 4775083, 3464–3469. Google Scholar
Owens, A. & Peacock, A. (2004). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 531, 18–37. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Ramo, S. (1939). Proc. IRE, 27, 584. CrossRef Google Scholar
Schneider, A., Veale, M. C., Duarte, D. D., Bell, S. J., Wilson, M. D., Lipp, J. D. & Seller, P. (2015). J. Instrum. 10, C02010. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Seller, P., Bell, S., Cernik, R. J., Christodoulou, C., Egan, C. K., Gaskin, J. A., Jacques, S., Pani, S., Ramsey, B. D., Reid, C., Sellin, P. J., Scuffham, J. W., Speller, R. D., Wilson, M. D. & Veale, M. C. (2011). J. Instrum. 6, C12009. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Sellin, P. J., Prekas, G., Franc, J. & Grill, R. (2010). Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 133509. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Shockley, W. (1938). J. Appl. Phys. 9, 635–636. CrossRef Google Scholar
Szeles, C., Soldner, S. A., Vydrin, S., Graves, J. & Bale, D. S. (2008). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 55, 572–582. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Taguchi, K. & Iwanczyk, J. S. (2013). Med. Phys. 40, 100901-1–100901-19. Google Scholar
Thomas, B., Veale, M. C., Wilson, M. D., Seller, P., Schneider, A. & Iniewski, K. (2017). J. Instrum. 12, C12045. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Tomita, Y., Shirayanagi, Y., Matsui, S., Misawa, M., Takahashi, H., Aoki, T. & Hatanaka, Y. (2004). IEEE Nucl. Sci. Symp. Conf. Rec. 6, 3733–3737. Google Scholar
Veale, M. C., Bell, S. J., Duarte, D. D., Schneider, A., Seller, P., Wilson, M. D. & Iniewski, K. (2014). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 767, 218–226. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Veale, M. C., Bell, S. J., Jones, L. L., Seller, P., Wilson, M. D., Allwork, C., Kitou, D., Sellin, P. J., Veeramani, P. & Cernik, R. C. (2011). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 58, 2357–2362. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Xu, C., Danielsson, M. & Bornefalk, H. (2011). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 58, 614–625. Google Scholar
Zappettini, A., Zha, M., Marchini, L., Calestani, D., Mosca, R., Gombia, E., Zanotti, L., Zanichelli, M., Pavesi, M., Auricchio, N. & Caroli, E. (2009). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 56, 1743–1746. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Zhang, F., He, Z. & Seifert, C. E. (2007). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 54, 843–848. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Zhu, Y., Anderson, S. E. & He, Z. (2011). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 58, 1400–1409. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.