Study of the β-Radiation from Activated Silver with a Geiger-Müller Tube

Yipeng Niu (Partner: Haochen Yan)

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles
Physics 18L, Professor B. C. Regen, Section 1A, TA Andy Chan and Paokuan Chin
(Dated: May 1, 2018)
We studied the radiation from decaying atoms in this experiment. We analyzed how the β-
radiation weakens as the distance from the source increases. We plotted the count rate against
distance logarithmically. The plot has a slope of (-2.00±0.03) ln(s−1 )/ln(m−1 ). We then measured
how the β-radiation weakens as the thickness of the shielding polyethylene increases. We plotted the
count rate logarithmically against the thickness. We calculated the penetration range to be (220±40)
mg/cm2 and the emitted electron energy to be 0.5-0.6 MeV. We measured how the γ-radiation
weakens as the thickness of the shielding lead increases. We plotted the count rate logarithmically
against the thickness. We calculated the penetration range to be (2220±150) mg/cm2 . We measured
the decay half-lives of 108 Ag and 110 Ag in neutron-activated silver and their charging rates. We
measured the half-life of 108 Ag to be (146.4±1.7) s, which agrees with the accepted value 145.2 s[2].
The charging rate of 108 Ag was (124±7) s−1 . We measured the half-life of 110 Ag to be (24.3±0.6)
s, which agrees with the accepted value 24.4 s[2]. The charging rate of 110 Ag was (490±20) s−1 .

I. INTRODUCTION

Radiation is both a hazard and a mean to analyze

the composition of materials. Through this experiment,
we obtained the knowledge to correctly protect ourselves
from radiation and the skills to perform analysis on radi-
ations. In this experiment, we studied how the intensity
of radiation is reduced with long distances and shielding.
We then measured the half-lives and the charging rates
of 108 Ag and 110 Ag in neutron-activated silver.
The radiation exposure decreases like r12 , where r is
the distance from the source.[1] Thus, the logarithm of FIG. 1. The relationship between energy and range of elec-
the Geiger-Müller tube count rate and the logarithm of trons.[3]
the distance from the source satisfies a linear relationship

dN
ln( ) = −2ln(r) + C, (1) silver atoms is
dt
−tc −td −tc −td
where C is some constant. We plotted the logarithm of N = Γ1 τ1 (1 − e τ1
)e τ1
+ Γ2 τ2 (1 − e τ2
)e τ2
, (3)
the Geiger-Müller tube count rate and the logarithm of
the distance from the source satisfies a linear relationship.
The slope should be -2 ln(s−1 )/ln(m−1 ) by equation 1. where tc and td are the charging time and the discharging
time. Γ1 is the charging rate of 108 Ag. Γ2 is the charging
Other than the distance, shielding also decreases the
rate of 110 Ag. The odd of observing an atom hit twice by
radiation exposure. The radiation exposure decreases ex-
neutrons is about 10−30 and could be neglected. There-
ponentially as the thickness of a shielding material x in-
fore, we regarded the charging rates to be constants. In
creases:
the limit where the charging time is much shorter than
R = R0 e−x/l , (2) the half-life of 108 Ag τ1 , we can write equation 3 as

where l is defined to be the range of the radiation.[1] We dN −tc

ln( ) = C + ln(Γ2 (1 − e τ2 )). (4)
plotted the logarithm of the Geiger-Müller tube count dt
rate against the thickness. By equation 2, the slope
should be − 1l . By figure 1, we could estimate the en- We could estimate Γ2 and τ2 with equation 4. Alter-
ergy of the emitted electrons using the range. natively, when τ1 τ2 and tc τ1 ,
With the experience of studying β-radiation and γ-
radiation separately, we could study 108 Ag and 110 Ag, dN td td
− ≈ Γ1 e τ1 + Γ2 e τ2 . (5)
which decay through β-radiation and γ-radiation.[1] Nat- dt
ural silver contains 107 Ag and 109 Ag.[1] By bombarding
a silver foil with neutrons, we activated a small portion Hence, we could fit the data with double exponential and
of them into 108 Ag and 110 Ag. The number of activated obtain Γ1 , Γ2 , τ1 , and τ2 .

II. EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS AND
PROCEDURE
We took our measurements with a PASCO SN-7927A
Geiger-Müller Counter. It was connected to the com-
puter via a PASCO Science Workshop
R
750 Interface.
The data were gathered by the PASCO Capstone soft-
ware on the computer. We removed the cap on the
Geiger-Müller tube for more readings, which leads to ac-
curate results.
The Geiger-Müller tube receives radiation from the en-
vironment, so we had to correct the data by subtracting
the background. We measured the background by not
placing sources in front of the Geiger-Müller tube.
Figure 2 shows the setup when we studied the rela-
tionship between the radiation exposure and the distance
from the source. The β-radiation source we used was a
Sr-90 0.1 µCi 28.6 y β source.
FIG. 2. A picture of the setup. The tray holding the source
was placed on each layer of the stand.
The distances from each layer to the Geiger-Müller
tube were 9.50 mm, 19.00 mm, 28.50 mm, 38.00 mm,
47.50 mm, and 57.00 mm, with an uncertainty of ±0.05
mm. For each distance, we recorded with a 30 s interval
for 5 min.
We then studied how the radiation is blocked by shield-
ing materials. In addition to the 60 Sr source, we used a
Co-60 1 µCi 5.27 y γ source. The source was placed in
the 19 mm layer. With each thickness of the shielding
materials, we recorded with a 30s interval for 5 minutes.
The shielding material for the 90 Sr source was polyethy-
lene. The thicknesses of polyethylene were 0.004 in, 0.008
in, 0.02 in, 0.062 in, 0.125 in and 0.25 in. The shielding
material for the 60 Co source was lead. The thicknesses
of lead were 0, 0.032 in, 0.062 in, 0.125 in, and 0.25 in.
Combining the knowledge of β-radiation and γ-
radiation, we studied 108 Ag and 110 Ag. The silver foils
we measured were irradiated for 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10
minutes and overnight to calculate the charging rate and
half-lives of 108 Ag and 110 Ag.
We then studied how the irradiation time is related to
2
the initial count rate. We irradiated the silver foils for 10
s, 20 s, 40 s, and 60 s, and took data with a 5 s interval
for 5 minutes.
III. DATA, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS
The background for the distance and shielding part was
0.20±0.01 s−1 , and for the silver part, it was 0.40±0.04
s−1 . During the silver part, there was a neutron source
in the laboratory, so the background was expected to be
greater. The corresponding background in each data was
removed for the following discussion.
For each number of events, we applied a statistical un-
certainty
√
σ = N. (6)
FIG. 3. The logarithm of count rate against the logarithm
of distance from the source. The slopes were -2.20±0.03
ln(s−1 )/ln(m−1 ) for the higher line (corrected by the posi-
tion of the detector) and -2.00±0.03 ln(s−1 )/ln(m−1 ) for the
lower line (not corrected by the position of the detector). The
parameters were calculated using CERN ROOT with least χ2
method.[4]
h
The detector was not located at the end of the Geiger-
Müller tube. the fitting shows that the parameter was
(4.9±0.1) mm. With this parameter in consideration, the
slope was -2.001±0.026 ln(s−1 )/ln(m−1 ), which agrees
with the expected value -2 ln(s−1 )/ln(m−1 ).
Figure 4 and figure 5 show how the β source and the
γ source were shielded.
By equation 2, the range is the negative of the recip-
rocal of the slope. The β source had a range of (221±36)
mg/cm2 . According to figure 1, this corresponds to 0.5
MeV-0.6 MeV of electron energy, which agrees with the
theoretical value 0.6 MeV[1]. he γ source had a range of
(2220±150) mg/cm2 .

FIG. 4. β source shielding. The slope is (-0.0045±0.0007)
cm2 mg−1 ln(s−1 ). The parameters were calculated using
CERN ROOT with least χ2 method.[4]
FIG. 5. γ source shielding. The slope is (-0.00045±0.00003)
cm2 mg−1 ln(s−1 ). The parameters were calculated using
CERN ROOT with least χ2 method.[4]
We performed a double exponential fit on the foil ir-
radiated overnight and the foil irradiated for 10 minutes
and calculated the values of Γ1 , τ1 , Γ2 and τ2 . Although
the two foils had different times of irradiation, they are
both saturated and should give similar results. The av-
eraged results are summarized in table 1.
3
FIG. 6. The count rate against time of decay of the foil ir-
radiated overnight. Γ1 , τ1 , Γ2 and τ2 are 142.1, 24.3, 138.1,
and 494.2, respectively. The parameters were calculated using
CERN ROOT with least χ2 method.[4]
FIG. 7. The count rate against time of decay of the foil irra-
diated for 10 minutes. Γ1 , τ1 , Γ2 and τ2 are 146.9, 24.9, 109.9,
and 477.7, respectively. The parameters were calculated using
CERN ROOT with least χ2 method.[4]
Average Accepted
τ1 : Half-life of 108 Ag (s) 146.4±1.7 145.2[2]
τ2 : Half-life of 110 Ag (s) 24.3±0.6 24.4[2]
Γ1 : Charging rate of 108 Ag (s−1 ) 124±7 N/A
Γ2 : Charging rate of 108 Ag (s−1 ) 490±20 N/A
TABLE I. Half-lives and charging rates summarized. The
half-lives agree with the accepted values.
 4

FIG. 9. Full process of the activation and decay of silver.

Time starts when the silver foil begins being bombarded by
neutrons. The curves are theoretical.
IV. CONCULSION
FIG. 8. The logarithm of the initial count rate against the
irradiation time. We fitted the 4 points with equation 5. The
The quantities we obtained from experiment and their
parameters were calculated using CERN ROOT with least χ2
method.[4]
theoretical values were summarized in Table 2:

Measured Accepted
β range in PE (mg/cm2 ) 220±40 N/A
γ range in lead (mg/cm2 ) 2220±150 N/A
With the fit shown in figure 8, Γ2 and τ2 are (450±9) β decay Ee (MeV) 0.5-0.6 0.6 (maximum)
s− 1 and (23±2) s. The half-life agrees with the accepted half-life of 108 Ag (s) 146.4±1.7 145.2
value, but the uncertainty is large. Each of the four data half-life of 110 Ag (s) 24.3±0.6 24.4
points has a large uncertainty because they are calculated charging rate of 108 Ag (s−1 ) 124±7 N/A
instead of direct measurements. Moreover, an important charging rate of 108 Ag (s−1 ) 490±20 N/A
factor involved in the calculation, the time it took for
us to run from the neutron source to the detector, has a TABLE II. The experimental results and the accepted values
large uncertainty. summarized.

We compared the figure 8 with the theory. If we do Our experimental results agree with the acceptable val-
not consider limits, equation 5 should be ues. A significant source of error comes from the running
time from the neutron source to the detector. We also
wasted time because we did not know about the correct
dN −t −tc −(t−tc )
ln( ) = C +ln(Γ2 (1−e τ2 ))+ln(Γ2 (1−e τ2 ))e τ2 . orientation of the β and γ source. For future experi-
dt ments, I suggest placing the detectors around the neu-
(7)
tron source, which would make the timing more control-
By plugging in the accepted values, we obtained figure lable. In this case, we can use extension wires to connect
9. Although the shapes of figure 8 and 9 are similar, the the detectors to each group’s computer. I also suggest
values are not, so we concluded that the method shown adding an instruction about the orientation of the radia-
in figure 8 was not reliable. tion sources to the lab manual in the future.

[1] B. C. Regen, Modern Physics and Fundamental Constants Nuclear Structure (Oregon State University, 2004),
(UCLA, 2018), pp. 45-62. https://courses.ecampus.oregonstate.edu/ne581/three/index3.htm.
[2] Y. Bentor, Chemical Element.com [4] CERN, the User’s Guide of Root Data
- Silver (Accessed Apr. 30 2018), Analysis Framework (CERN, 2014),
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/ag.html. https://root.cern.ch/root/htmldoc/guides/users-
[3] K. A. Higley, Radiation Protection - Atomic and guide/ROOTUsersGuide.html.