Comparison of acrylic polymer adhesive tapes and silicone optical grease in light sharing detectors for positron emission tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical coupling is an important factor in detector design as it improves optical photon transmission by mitigating internal reflections at light-sharing boundaries. In this work we compare optical coupling materials, namely double-sided acrylic polymer tapes and silicone optical grease (SiG), in the context of positron emission tomography. Four double-sided tapes from 3 M of varying thicknesses (0.229 mm-1.016 mm) and adhesive materials ('100MP', 'A100', and 'GPA') were characterized with spectrophotometer measurements as well as photopeak amplitude and energy resolution measurements using lutetium-yttrium oxy-orthosilicate (LYSO) coupled to photomultiplier tubes (PMT) or silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs). Transmission spectra from the spectrophotometer showed over 80% transmission for all tapes at 420 nm and above, with 89.6% and 88.8% transmission for the 0.508 mm and 1.016 mm thick GPA tapes, respectively, at 420 nm. Measurements with single-pixel LYSO-PMT and 4 × 4 array (one-to-one coupled) LYSO-SiPM setups determined that SiG had the greatest photopeak amplitude, with tapes showing 2.1%-14.8% reduction in photopeak amplitude with respect to SiG. Energy resolution changed by less than 4% on a relative basis between tapes and SiG with PMT measurements, however for the SiPM array measurements the energy resolution improved from 15.6% ± 2.7% full-width at half-maximum to 11.4% ± 1.2% for SiG and 1 mm GPA respectively. Data acquired with dual-layer offset LYSO arrays (light sharing detector designs) demonstrated that a detector coupled with 1 mm thick GPA tape produced equivalent detector flood histograms to those from a design coupled with SiG and a 1 mm thick glass lightguide. No significant degradation in photopeak amplitude and energy resolution was observed over five months of measurements, indicating the tapes maintain their coupling integrity over several months. Though minimal photopeak amplitude degradation compared to SiG occurs, double-sided tapes are convenient alternatives for optical coupling materials since they diffuse light intrinsically, acting as a light guide, offer mechanical support and durability, are easily applied and removed from scintillators/photodetectors, and are relatively inexpensive and readily available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".