Quick Navigation

Topics

Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations Spin Qubits Silicon Quantum Computing Quantum Device Fabrication Process Engineering Quantum Chemistry

Ultra-dense lutetium oxide ceramic scintillators for positron emission tomography.

PubMed
Authors: Hamato A, Lee D, Ota R, Hemmati H, Muller M, Wang Y, Soundara Pandian L, Kim S, Yamaya T, Cherry SR, Glodo J, Kwon SI

Year

2026

Paper ID

10068

Status

Peer-reviewed

Abstract Read

~3 min

Abstract Words

372

Citations

1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Lutetium oxide (Lu₂O₃), with its high density (9.4 g/cm³), presents a compelling scintillation host for detecting 511 keV annihilation photons in positron emission tomography (PET). Despite its favorable density, the practical deployment of Lu₂O₃-based scintillators for PET has faced limitations due to difficulties in crystal growth and inappropriate decay time. Recent progress in ceramic processing has facilitated the development of transparent Lu₂O₃ ceramics, while targeted doping strategies have significantly improved their luminescence performance. This study evaluates the performance of Lu₂O₃:Yb and a newly developed ceramic scintillator of (Lu,Y)₂O₃:La, a modified Lu₂O₃-based compound incorporating yttrium (Y) and doped with lanthanum (La). APPROACH: Various ceramic disks were fabricated and cut into 3 × 3 × 5 mm³ samples. The performance of both Lu₂O₃:Yb and (Lu,Y)₂O₃:La ceramic samples in terms of decay time, energy resolution, and coincidence timing resolution (CTR) was assessed. Decay time measurements were conducted using waveform data collected from samples mounted on an H10580 photomultiplier tube (PMT) and irradiated with 511 keV photons from a ²²Na source. Energy and coincidence timing resolutions were evaluated using both PMT and silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) setups, arranged in coincidence with a reference lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate (LYSO) detector of the same size. MAIN RESULTS: All three (Lu,Y)₂O₃:La ceramic scintillator samples exhibited a triple exponential decay profile and were dominated by a slow component ranging from 1379.3 to 1515.6 ns. The best energy resolution of 15.4% at 511 keV and the best CTR of 237.9 ps full width at half maximum (FWHM) were observed for the same sample. In contrast, a fast decay time of 1.6 ns was observed for the Lu₂O₃:Yb samples, which exhibited CTR values ranging from 237.9 ps to 261.4 ps FWHM, while the photopeak at 511 keV was difficult to distinguish. These CTR values were estimated between two identical ceramic samples, derived from coincidence measurements of each ceramic sample against the LYSO reference detector. The (Lu,Y)₂O₃:La samples achieved CTR values comparable to those of the Lu₂O₃:Yb samples, as their much higher light yield offsets the disadvantage associated with their slower decay time. SIGNIFICANCE: These results highlight the promising potential of the (Lu,Y)₂O₃:La ceramic scintillators for PET applications, especially for time-of-flight PET.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Chemistry research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • OBJECTIVE: Lutetium oxide (Lu₂O₃), with its high density (9.4 g/cm³), presents a compelling scintillation host for detecting 511 keV annihilation photons in positron emission...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #10068 #78837 TLS loss in superconducting res... #78797 Local polarization control of o... #78792 Demonstration of subspace-searc...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal • updated 2026-10-26 23:41:09

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.