!

1
Identifying Unknown Radioactive Sources via Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy

Jake Cohen

I. PHYSICAL OVERVIEW

Gamma ray spectroscopy is the technique of

utilizing a radioactive elements gamma ray
emissions to determine the relevant properties of
that element. To name a few, these properties
include the half-life, amount of element present in
a given sample, and the absolute activity (total
amount of gamma emissions). Through gamma
ray spectroscopy, these various attributes can only
be calculated after energy (or energies) of the
prime gamma ray(s) has been determined.
When the nucleus of an unstable atom undergoes
an energy change and becomes more stable, it
emits ionizing radiation. This radiation can be in
the form of alpha particles, beta particles, and
gamma rays. By the photoelectric effect, the
gamma rays emitted by a radioactive material can
transfer their energy to an electron in a crystal,
whereby the electron will travel a short distance
while colliding with many atoms in the crystal.
The electrons energy is converted into photons
when it collides with the atoms, and the number
of photons released is proportional to the original
energy of the gamma ray emitted by the
radioactive material. In this lab, a photomultiplier
tube (PMT) converts these photons into a small
current, which is then amplified and measured by
an Analog to Digital Conversion (ADC) process.
After proper calibration, a computer is used to
show and thus verify the original energy of the
gamma rays.

A. Identifying unknown sample

If a layer of material, is put in between the

radioactive sample and the crystal, the number of

gamma rays detected is decreased according to the

equation
(1)
N(x) = N o e x

!
!

where No is the number of gammas detected

without any material in between, x is the thickness
of the material, and is the attenuation value - a
constant unique to each radioactive material.
Manipulating this equation for gives:

ln(

N(x)
)
No
.
x

By finding , the element in question can be

identified. In practice, one finds the Half Value
Layer (HVL) of element. This is when the the
number of gamma rays detected has been reduced
to half the original number, whereby

HVL =

0.693
.

(3)

In this specific case, the HVL of an unknown

sample carrying two elements was determined
using the aforementioned methods. The sample
was put under stacks of lead with a total of ten
different thicknesses. After graphing and finding
the slope of best fit, the elements identified in the
unknown sample were 137Cs and 65Zn.

II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

!
A. Setup
!

!
!
!

(2)

For a standard gamma ray spectroscopy setup, a

high voltage supply is connected to the PMT.
The scintillating crystal and the PMT are one
piece, and sit on a platform above a stack of

!2

horizontal slots. The scintillation counter then

connects a multichannel amplifier and analyzer
which is connected (via USB) to a computer
(Figure 1).

B. Procedure

The radioactive sample was put on a square

piece of plastic that fits into the slots, thereby
providing the ability to move the sample at
discrete distances from the crystal. In all instances
of collecting data, the sample was put in the
second-highest slot. This kept the sample close
enough to the PMT while still providing enough
space to put in multiple layers of lead. The
computer software (Spectrum Techniques UCS10)
was calibrated using a known source - 137CS. The
following settings were set after calibrating: High
Voltage - 550V; Course gain - 4; Fine Gain - 1.5;
Counts full scale - logarithmic; Conversion Gain 1,024. Once calibrated, the high voltage was
turned on and the data was collected.
For each thickness, the data was collected for
ten minutes. After ten minutes, another layer of
lead was placed in between the sample and the
PMT. In order to ascertain an accurate number of
gammas that were detected at the photopeak, a
Region Of Interested (ROI) from 1,084 keV 1,135 keV was taken about the photopeak peak.
The number net counts for the ROI was recorded
as the number of counts for the photopeak

associated with the given lead thickness. The data

was then put into the software IGOR for
providing the line of best-fit.

C. Observations and Results

From the initial collection of energy levels for

the unknown sample, it was immediately
recognized that there were two radioactive
elements present. One of those elements was
identifiable as 137Cs, by comparing it to the data
collected from the known sample of 137Cs used for
calibration. The second element was narrowed
down to three possibilities by the location of its
photo peak in the region of 1115keV. As such, the
method of determining the HVL of the element
was utilized to determine the unknown element in
the sample. The data for the ten different
thicknesses of lead was tabulated and then put
into IGOR for analysis. The raw data can be seen
in Table 1 and the analyzed data from IGOR is
shown in Figure 2.
From the data collected and the analysis in IGOR,
it was found that

!
!

= 0.0653 ,
and therefore, by using equation (3),

HVL =

0.693
= 10.6mm
0.0653

!
!

!
The HVLs of radioactive sources with a photo
peak in the 1100-1130 keV regime were looked up
and it was found that the only possibility for the
unknown element in the sample was 65Zn.

ln(N(x)/No) (counts)

!3

!Figure 2: A line

Thickness (mm)

fit to the data points for ten

different thicknesses of lead used with the
unknown source. It represents the exponential
decay of the number of counts as a function of
the thickness of lead in between the source and
the photomultiplier-tube. The slope of the line
provides the attenuation value for this unknown
source.

Table 1: Raw data collected from eleven different

layers of lead, plus one run with no lead, No.
III. INSIGHT AND IMPLICATIONS

!
!

A. Pros and cons of the HVL method

The generally accepted HVL for 65Zn is
14mm. This implies that the experimentally
determined value is twenty four percent off from
the accepted value. As such, 65Zn was determined
by a slight process of elimination. This alone
demonstrates that the approach taken was not
ideal. At the same time, however, other methods
were utilized with an aim to identify the unknown
source, and the HVL method proved the most
promising. First, the HVL is a commonly used

value to describe the properties of a radioactive

source. Second, the method involved taking a best
fit from over ten different values (when No is
included in the collected values), rather than
simply comparing two values (e.g. comparing the
absolute activities of the two sources present in
the unknown sample.
The HVL method is not without its flaws,
though. It was determined that, to attain reliable
data, counts needed to be collected for (at least)
ten minutes for each different thickness of lead.
This became a limiting factor since to test the
method each time took nearly two hours. The time
with the equipment was limited to five hours at a
time, and thus only two full executions of the
experiment could be completed within one day of
work - thereby limiting the impacts of changes in
external factors.

!
!

B. External factors
The HVL method was fully executed twice,

!4
and both times delivered the same result of
10.6mm. After the experiment had been run, it
was realized that other external factors could have
contributed to the error in the experimentally
determined value. Background radiation from
other radioactive sources near the detector, for
instance, could have contributed to slightly
skewed values. In the end, however, the complete
reason(s) for the disparity between the
experimentally determined value and the
universally accepted value were inconclusive.
The HVL method is not a commonly used
approach for determining an unknown radioactive
source, and it evidently presented its benefits and
its shortcomings.
IV. Conclusion

Because the HVL is not a common method for

determining a radioactive sources element(s),
there were few-to-no previously recorded
techniques to compare our approach with.
Nonetheless, we came to a conclusive result and
were able to state with decent certainty that our
unknown radioactive source included the two
elements 137Cs and 65Zn. If the task were to be
presented again, other known elements would be
used with the same method, and then compared to
their known HVL values. As with many
laboratory tasks, this endeavor was a prime
example that, especially when under a time
constraint, as many possible methods and external
factors should be considered before moving
forward with a specific approach.
V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work on this project was done in part

with Charles Coombs. Advisory insight and
oversight was provided by Giulia Collura and
Deborah Fyngenson.