Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:17:31.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

X-Ray Studies of Synthetic Radiation-Counting Diamonds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Andrew Yacoot ,
Moreton Moore  and
Anthony Makepeace
Andrew Yacoot
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway, London University, Dept. of Physics, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK
Moreton Moore
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway, London University, Dept. of Physics, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK
Anthony Makepeace
Affiliation:
Bristol University, Department of Physiology, Bristol BS8 1TD, UK
Get access

Abstract

Synthetic diamonds with a nitrogen content less than 100ppm may be used as radiation dosimeters in a conduction counting mode, and are especially useful in medical applications. Crystal imperfections, revealed by X-ray diffraction topography, were found to affect counting performance. The best quality diamond gave the highest photocurrent (500nA at 50 V mm−1 and 2.75 Gy min−l). Diamonds containing dislocations had lower photocurrents but had the advantage of shorter settling times (seconds rather than minutes). Placing contacts on two opposite cube {100} faces gave a higher photocurrent than on a pair of octahedral {111} faces. Higher photocurrents were also achieved when the majority of dislocations were perpendicular rather than parallel to the electric field. Some recommendations for selecting synthetic diamonds for dosimeters are given.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 302: Symposium F – Semiconductors for Room-Temperature Radiation Detector Applications , 1993 , 293
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Johns, H.E. and Cunningham, J.R., The Physics of Radiology, 4th ed. (Charles Thomas 1983), p. 148.Google Scholar
2. Bampton, F.K., Ind. Diamond Rev. 36, 55 (1976).Google Scholar
3. Wooldridge, D.E, Ahearn, A.J., Burton, J.A., Phys. Rev. 71, 913 (1947).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Champion, F.C., Proc. Phys. Soc. 65B, 465 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Keddy, R.J., Nam, T.L., Burns, R.C., Phys. Med. Bio. 32, 751 (1987); Carbon, 26, 245 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Strong, H.M. and Chrenko, R.M., J. Chem. Phys. 75, 1836 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lang, A.R. Acta. Metall. 5, 358 (1957); Acta. Cryst. 12, 249 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Yacoot, A., Moore, M., Makepeace, A.P.W., Phys. Med. Bio. 35, No 10 1409 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Lang, A.R., Moore, M., Makepeace, A.P.W., Wierzchowski, W., Welbourn, C.M., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A337 497 (1991)Google Scholar