335
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Corrigendum

Corrigendum

This article refers to:
Pulse pileup correction in the presence of a large low-energy background

Pulse pileup correction in the presence of a large low-energy background, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2015; 52: 426–433.

It has recently come to the author's attention that certain values in Table 1 and the caption for Figure 5 are incorrect, and that a statement in the conclusion was unclear.

In Table 1, row 5 (stated as Eγ = 2.3 MeV 6100 Hz), the rate should be 6700 Hz. The rate times the time to peak, p, should then be 0.078. This value for p, and those in all other rows, assumes τp = 11.6 μs, according to the manufacturer specification as stated earlier in the paper. The pileup amount, ρ (rate), however, for all rows, used τp = 10.0 μs, which we neglected to state. This assumption we believe is justified because the skew normal distribution has a sharper leading edge (narrower peak width) than a normal distribution (see Figure 4). Scaling the time-to-peak, τp, by the difference in peak width for the leading edge yields τp = 10.0 μs. Using this value of τp gives ρ (rate) = 0.065 for row 5. τp can be determined from ρ (fit), yielding τp = 9.0 ± 0.3 μs, using the data in all rows. The differences between these several values of τp affects the pileup distortion at the level of only 1 or 2 keV above the energy of a discrete gamma transition which only broadens the measured peak. The smaller τp determined from fitting is likely because the data were binned to 1 keV/bin, losing sensitivity to spectral distortion at scales less than this.

For Figure 5, the data displayed are for the measurement at Eγ = 2.3 MeV, 6700 Hz.

The phrase in the conclusions stating that accounting for differences in the pileup sequence introduces a correction of the order of 2% should also be qualified. The 2% correction is in comparison to assuming that the pileup amount is exactly half the pileup fraction. As stated earlier in the paper, the scaling factor was determined to be 0.51 for the present data. The relationship between the pileup amount, pileup fraction, and scaling factor is given by Equation (12).

The author would like to apologize for these oversights.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.