ARTICLE IN PRESS

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 586 (2008) 204210

www.elsevier.com/locate/nima

DETEFF: An improved Monte Carlo computer program for evaluating

the efciency in coaxial gamma-ray detectors
N. Cornejo D aza, M. Jurado Vargasb,
a

Centro de Proteccion e Higiene de las Radiaciones, P.O. Box 6195, Habana, Cuba
b
Departamento de Fsica, Universidad de Extremadura, 06071 Badajoz, Spain

Received 11 June 2007; received in revised form 26 November 2007; accepted 29 November 2007
Available online 14 December 2007

Abstract
We present the new improved version of our Monte Carlo program DETEFF for detector efciency calibration in gamma-ray
spectrometry. It can be applied to a wide range of sample geometries commonly used for measurements with coaxial gamma-ray
detectors: point, rectangular, disk, cylindrical, and Marinelli sources (the last being newly included in this version). The program is a
dedicated code, designed specically for computation of gamma-ray detector efciency. Therefore, it is more user-friendly and less time
consuming than most multi-purpose programs that are intended for a wide range of applications. The comparison of efciency values
obtained with DETEFF and MCNP4C for a typical HpGe detector and for energies between 40 and 1800 keV for point, cylindrical, and
Marinelli geometries gave acceptable results, with relative deviations o2% for most energies. The validity of the program was also tested
by comparing the DETEFF-calculated efciency values with those obtained experimentally using a coaxial HpGe detector for different
sources (point, disk, and 250 mL Marinelli beaker) which contain 241Am, 109Cd, 57Co, 139Ce, 85Sr, 137Cs, 88Y, and 60Co. The calculated
values were in good agreement with the experimental efciencies for the three geometries considered, with the relative deviations
generally being below 3.0%. These results and those obtained during the application of the previous versions indicate the programs
suitability as a tool for the efciency calibration of coaxial gamma-ray detectors, especially in routine measurements such as
environmental monitoring.
r 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PACS: 02.70.Uu; 29.30.Kv; 29.40.Wk
Keywords: Gamma-ray spectrometry; Efciency calibration; HpGe detectors; Monte Carlo methods

1. Introduction
Because gamma-ray spectrometry is a non-destructive
technique which does not require laborious sample
preparation, it has become one of the most widely used
procedures to quantify the concentrations of radionuclides
in the environment. In addition, the improvement of the
spectral energy resolution with the use of new HpGe
detectors has allowed greater accuracy to be attained.
Accuracy in the analysis requires, however, knowledge of
the peak efciency at each photon energy from performing,
if possible, an efciency calibration using standard samples
Corresponding author. Fax: +34 924289651.

E-mail address: mjv@unex.es (M.J. Vargas).

0168-9002/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.11.072

with the same geometrical dimensions, density, and

chemical composition as the sample of interest. But these
conditions often cannot be met because of problems with
precipitation of chemicals in liquid standards, lack of
homogeneity in solid standard samples, etc. In addition, it
is difcult to nd standards for all energies of interest and
with appropriate half-lives. Therefore, the use of interpolation procedures and a continuous renewal of spent
standards are inherent shortcomings of this approach.
Experimental calibrations are also time consuming, especially when many different matrices or sample-detector
geometries have to be measured.
In order to overcome these difculties, a powerful tool is
the use of Monte Carlo simulation, which allows the peak
efciencies to be calculated taking into account the detailed

ARTICLE IN PRESS
N.C. Daz, M.J. Vargas / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 586 (2008) 204210

characteristics of detectors and samples. In this paper, we

describe the new version of the Monte Carlo program
DETEFF, which we developed to evaluate efciency values
for several sourcedetector congurations in gamma-ray
spectrometry. The previous version of this program [1] has
already been applied to coaxial HpGe detectors: studies of
the inuence of some detector characteristics on efciency
[2], estimation of gamma-ray self-absorption corrections in
environmental samples [3], and the efciency transfer from
point to cylindrical sources [4]. We here present the main
features of the program, including an overview of the
radiation transport algorithm used in this new version,
which also considers Marinelli geometries and incorporates
some improvements in the simulation of photon attenuation before reaching the active detector volume. The
program, written in Borland Delphi 3, and running on
the Windows platform, has been specically designed for
computation of detection peak efciencies in gamma-ray
spectrometric systems, taking into account relevant physical processes and sourcedetector parameters, so that it is
more user-friendly and faster than most multi-purpose
Monte Carlo programs that are intended for a wide range
of applications.
In Section 2, we summarize the codes structure and user
interface, and Section 3 describes the physics implemented
in the code. Sections 4 and 5 are devoted to checks of the
program, by comparing the efciency values calculated

with DETEFF with those obtained with MCNP4C [5] and

experimentally for coaxial HpGe (p-type) detectors, using
different geometry setups over an energy range suited to
environmental monitoring.

2. Structure of the code and user interface

The code was written to evaluate the full energy peak
(f.e.p.) efciency in typical coaxial gamma-ray detectors,
which can be scintillators (NaI or CsI) or semiconductor
detectors (Ge(Li), HpGe or Si(Li)). The program is
designed to run on the Windows platform, the language
used being Borland Delphi 3. The code consists of seven
main modules with well-dened tasks. The codes structure
and the interrelationships between those modules are
shown in Fig. 1.
The basic characteristics considered in DETEFF for
modeling a given detector are illustrated in Fig. 2, which
shows the user interface to introduce the values of the
detector parameters. Some of these parameters are
common to all the detectors includedthe crystal diameter, and height and thickness of the Al cover, for
example. Others may be specic to a given type of
detectorthe parameters related to the inner core, the
frontal and lateral dead layers, and the entrance window,
for example.

START

INITIALIZATION

USER INTERFASE
Detector data
Source data
Filter data
Statistic options

Random Sequence
Variables
1
PHOTON GENERATION
Starting point sampling
Direction vector sampling
Initial energy setting
Initial statistical weight setting

GEOMETRY

Total number of photons?

yes
Total number of experiments?
no
Increase of experiment number
Resetting of photon number

no
1
yes

Calculation of photon attenuation

Upgrading of photon statistical weight

no

no
Any energy deposited in detector?

yes
yes

PHYSICS
3
5

Interaction inside detector active volume?

f.e.p. efficiency calculation

Uncertainty calculations

yes

SCORING AND OUTPUTS

Adding of the photon weight to
the corresponding energy bin
Resetting of energy deposited

no

Photon impinges detector active volume?

2

STATISTIC CONTROL

205

Sampling of photon Path-length

Sampling of interaction type

Scoring of the energy deposited in detector
Sampling of secondary photons
yes
Secondary photons to be followed?

no
END

Fig. 1. Basic scheme of the codes structure, showing the interrelationships of the main program modules.

3
6

ARTICLE IN PRESS
206

N.C. Daz, M.J. Vargas / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 586 (2008) 204210

The sample congurations considered in DETEFF are

cylindrical, rectangular, and Marinelli beakers, thus
including the cases of point and disk sources as degenerate
cylindrical geometries. In the case of volumetric sources,
the user must give the thickness of the recipient walls as
well as the linear attenuation coefcient for the photon
energy of interest in the wall material and in the source
matrix. The samples are considered to be axially centered
with respect to the detector, so that the source position is
dened by the source-to-detector distance. Fig. 3 shows by
way of illustration the window corresponding to the source
data for the particular case of a Marinelli sample. The
program provides a simple tool to facilitate the calculation
of attenuation coefcients for some typical materials

encountered in gamma-ray detectors and environmental

samples.
The program allows the possibility of considering the
photon attenuation caused by some additional material
(called lter in the program) placed between the source
and detector. For instance, this lter could be introduced in
order to prevent the possible contamination of the
detector. For this lter, the user must dene its thickness
and the linear attenuation coefcient for the photon energy
of interest. If several layers of different materials were
placed horizontally between the source and detector, the
user could dene an effective linear attenuation coefcient
meff for this hypothetical lter, assuming as its thickness the
sum of the corresponding layer thicknesses:
Pn
mi xi
meff Pi1
(1)
n
i1 xi
where mi and xi denote the linear attenuation coefcient
(without coherent scattering) and the thickness corresponding to the ith layer, respectively, and n the total
number of layers placed between source and detector.
3. Monte Carlo simulation in DETEFF

Fig. 2. Window of the program DETEFF, showing the different

geometrical characteristics of a detector.

The code uses the 32-bit linear congruential pseudorandom number generator included in the Borland Delphi
(3) package. The period of this pseudo-random sequence
is 232, i.e., approximately 4.3  109. In almost all the
situations modeled with DETEFF, 108 random numbers
are enough to obtain standard deviations of o0.1%.
The particularities of each step in the Monte Carlo
simulation carried out by DETEFF are commented on in
the following subsections.

Fig. 3. Window of the program DETEFF, showing as an example the data corresponding to a Marinelli source.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
N.C. Daz, M.J. Vargas / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 586 (2008) 204210

3.1. Before reaching the active crystal

The initial state of each photon is given by its starting
point, direction vector, energy, and a statistical weight
(initially equal to unity). The simulation begins with the
sampling of the starting position for the emission of each
photon inside the sample. This starting position is
randomly sampled according to a uniform distribution
throughout the interior of the source volume, i.e. assuming
a homogeneous sourceactivity distribution. Once the
starting point is determined, the direction vector is
randomly sampled according to an isotropic distribution.
For Marinelli geometries, the direction vector is sampled in
4p sr, while for rectangular and cylindrical sources (located
above the detector) it is sampled only towards the detector
semi-space (i.e. within a solid angle of 2p sr), as a variance
reduction technique. In this latter case, the statistical
weight of the photons is halved.
Because DETEFF was specically conceived to evaluate
the f.e.p. efciency, it uses a non-analog method to
consider the losses of counts in the f.e.p. as a consequence
of photon interactions in the different materials along the
photons path between its starting point inside the source
matrix and the active detector volume. These materials
could be the sample matrix, source walls, some lter placed
between detector and source, detector entrance window,
and the crystal dead layers. Thus, the photons statistical
weight is reduced according to its attenuation probability
along its path before reaching the active detector volume.
At the entrance point in the detector, this statistical weight
is given by
 Pn


mi d i
i1
W W 0e
(2)
with W0 being the initial weight, mi the total linear
attenuation coefcient (without coherent scattering) of
material i for a given initial photon energy, di the photon
path in the ith material, and n the total number of
materials. The corresponding mass attenuation coefcients
are calculated using analytical functions tted to the
discrete values given by the XCOM database [6].
3.2. Inside the active crystal
Once the photon reaches the detector, the distance l to
the rst interaction point is sampled using the well-known
expression:
1 1
l ln
m x

(3)

where m denotes the linear attenuation coefcient of the

detector material for the photon energy, and x is a pseudorandom number uniformly distributed on (0,1).
The photon interactions considered by DETEFF are the
photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production. The type of interaction that will take place is
randomly sampled using the corresponding partial mass

207

attenuation coefcients for the detector material, which are

calculated from the XCOM database [6] as indicated
above. The basic simulation approaches for each interaction can be summarized as follows:
(a) Photoelectric effect: The energy transferred to the
electron is assumed to be locally absorbed in the
detector. The corresponding uorescent effect is
considered by the code for NaI, CsI, and Ge detectors,
assuming an isotropic sampling of characteristic
X-rays. In these cases, if characteristic radiation
escapes from the detector, the energy deposited after
the photons absorption may not be registered in the
f.e.p., depending on the energy resolution predened by
the user. For Si detectors, since the characteristic K
X-rays have a maximum energy of 1.8 keV for which
the mean free path in Si is o14 mm, the escape effect for
these photons is assumed to be negligible.
(b) Compton scattering: The photon scattering angle after a
Compton interaction in the detector is sampled using
the well-known KleinNishina formula. Although the
kinematics of Compton scattering is assumed to be
with free electrons, the total scattering cross sections
used by the code [6] includes the incoherent scattering
factors, which consider the electrons binding effects.
The EverettCashwell method [7] is used to sample the
scattering angle from the probability density function.
The corresponding azimuthal angle j is isotropically
sampled in the interval (0, 2p). The scattered photon is
further followed with the same statistical weight as
before the scattering, so that multiple Compton
scattering is also considered by the code.
(c) Pair production: The kinetic energy of the created
positron/electron pair, estimated as the photon energy
minus 2mec2, is assumed to be locally deposited at the
collision point. The positron annihilation is considered
to occur at the point of collision, resulting in a pair of
photons each with the incoming photon statistical
weight, and with an energy of mec2 0.511 MeV. The
direction of one photon is isotropically sampled in 4p
sr, while the other takes the opposite direction. The
very rare annihilation photons of 1.022 MeV are not
generated. Monte Carlo simulation is continued for
each annihilation photon, sampling again the next
interaction point, type of interaction, etc.
The code assumes that the entire kinetic energy of
charged particles is deposited at the collision point. This
implies that bremsstrahlung radiation produced by the
secondary electrons is not considered during the simulation
process. The contribution of bremsstrahlung to the energy
loss can be signicant for relatively high-energy photons,
so that the calculations in DETEFF are appropriate for
photons with energies that are at most somewhat
o2000 keV.
The photons history is stopped when it leaves the
detector or when its energy falls below 10 keV. Photons of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
N.C. Daz, M.J. Vargas / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 586 (2008) 204210

o10 keV are considered to be absorbed at the point where

they originated. This assumption saves computation time
and is considered to be acceptable in the context of the
simulations performed, because the absorption probability
for 10 keV photons is considerably higher than the
scattering probability. For example, the photoelectric mass
attenuation coefcient for photons of 10 keV in Ge is
35.7 cm2 g1, while for scattering (coherent plus Compton)
the value is 1.7 cm2 g1. In addition, the mean free path for
10 keV photons is relatively small for the detector materials
considered, being only 52 mm in Ge. A special procedure is
then used to follow the characteristic X-rays from Ge that
originated with energies below 10 keV in the particular
cases when incident photons have energies of o100 keV,
whose interactions occur nearer the crystal surface. In these
cases, only the next interaction point is sampled, according
to expression (3), in order to check whether or not the
X-ray escapes from the active crystal.
The output given by DETEFF is the following:
(a) Detector intrinsic peak efficiency: Ratio between the
numbers of gamma rays registered in the f.e.p. (i.e., the
sum of statistical weights of photons whose energy is
registered in f.e.p.) and the number of photons
impinging on the detector with the user-dened initial
energy.
(b) Peak efficiency of sourcedetector system: Ratio between the number of gamma rays registered in the f.e.p.
(i.e., the sum of statistical weights of photons whose
energy is registered in f.e.p.) and the number of
photons generated by the source. This is the efciency
value that is required for activity calculations in
gamma-ray measurements.
In order to estimate the statistical uncertainty associated
with these values, the code divides the total number of
generated photons into batches, then giving a mean value
for the efciency and its corresponding standard deviation.
To this end, the user must dene the number of
experiments or runs to be made and the number of
photons to be generated for each experiment. The nal
uncertainty of each calculated value is given as one
standard deviation expressed in percent.
4. Comparison with MCNP
The physics modeled in DETEFF was checked by
comparison with the well-known Monte Carlo program
MCNP4C [5], using the photon library mcplib04 [8] and the
electron library el03 [9]. The exercise was conducted for a
typical HpGe (p-type) detector because this demands more
physical parameters to be properly simulated than the rest
of the detectors considered in DETEFF. The characteristics of the HpGe detector are summarized in Table 1. The
efciencies were computed for several discrete energy
values in the range 401800 keV and for the following
source congurations: point source (at 5 mm distance from

Table 1
Dimensions of the HpGe detector considered for the comparison with
MCNP 4C
Characteristic

Value (mm)

Ge crystal diameter
Ge crystal length
Ge dead layers (front and lateral)
Core diameter
Core depth
Distance from crystal to Al cover
Al cover diameter
Al cover length
Al thickness

60
60
1
10
40
4
70
70
1

Point
0.1
Marinelli
Efficiency

208

Cylindrical

0.01

0.001

1000

100
Energy (keV)

Fig. 4. Values of the full-energy peak efciency calculated with DETEFF

(dots) and MCNP4C (triangles) for the three source geometries
considered. The dashed lines connect the values obtained with MCNP4C.

the detector), and cylindrical source (diameter 90 mm,

lling height 40 mm) and 250 mL Marinelli beaker, both
with polystyrene walls and containing hypothetical highdensity water (r 3.0 g cm3).
The efciency values computed with DETEFF and
MCNP4C for the three source congurations are plotted
in Fig. 4. The number of primary photons to be generated
during each run at a given photon energy was adjusted so
that the statistical uncertainties associated with the
calculated peak efciency were o0.1% using DETEFF
and o0.5% using MCNP4C. The run times for the less
efcient congurations, with a standard 2.3 GHz CPU,
were o2 min with DETEFF and about 200 min with
MCNP. Table 2 gives the relative deviations between the
values computed with DETEFF and those obtained with
MCNP4C. As can be seen from Table 2, there was a very
satisfactory agreement with the values computed with
MCNP4C over the entire energy range and for each of the
three sources considered. The good agreement for the
extended sources, which had a fairly high-density is a check

ARTICLE IN PRESS
N.C. Daz, M.J. Vargas / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 586 (2008) 204210
Table 2
Relative deviations between the values of f.e.p. efciency calculated with
DETEFF and with MCNP4C for the different source geometries
considered
Energy (keV)

40
45
60
80
100
120
140
160
300
500
700
1000
1200
1400
1500
1600
1800

Deviation (%)
Point

Cylindrical

Marinelli

2.74
1.05
1.15
0.76
0.11
0.17
0.04
0.10
0.38
0.49
0.32
1.24
1.26
1.99
2.28
2.97
4.17

2.22
1.50
1.34
0.75
0.16
0.02
0.01
0.14
1.02
0.92
0.64
0.49
0.35
0.21
1.03
2.20
2.96

0.11
0.42
0.07
0.53
0.66
0.75
0.65
0.91
0.88
1.54
1.07
0.02
0.44
0.11
1.29
1.20
2.59

that the photon self-attenuation in the source matrices is

adequately estimated by DETEFF. Consequently, the nonanalog method used in DETEFF to optimize the relationship between simulation time and precision (which takes
into account the losses of counts in f.e.p. as a consequence
of photon interactions before reaching the active detector
volume) is appropriate to quantify the f.e.p. efciency
values in the energy range of interest for environmental
gamma-ray measurements.
It should be noted that DETEFF does not simulate
the non-radiative processes of electron transport, while
in the simulations with MCNP we selected detailed
simulation of electron transport. This option is time
consuming, and, in light of the results presented in Table
2, seems to be of little practical relevance for f.e.p.
efciency calculations in gamma-ray spectrometry for
environmental monitoring.
In spite of the good agreement, one can see from Table 2
that the efciency deviations are slightly greater for
energies above about 1400 keV for all three sources studied.
This effect is due to the escape of bremsstrahlung photons
produced by secondary electrons, which is not taken into
account in DETEFF, so that the efciency is somewhat
overestimated for energy values greater than about
1400 keV. The contribution of bremsstrahlung is signicant
for relatively high-energy photons, so that the calculations in DETEFF are appropriate for photons with
energies below 1800 keV, which is the photon range usually
considered by most laboratories dedicated to environmental measurements. Finally, one observes that there is a
slight discrepancy for 40 keV. This could be due to
differences in the values of cross sections considered by
the two programs at low energies.

209

5. Comparison with experiment

The validity of the program was tested by comparing the
efciency values calculated with DETEFF with those
obtained experimentally for different source geometries;
point, disk (cellulose lter), and a Marinelli beaker. The
measurements were performed with a p-type HpGe
detector, with a relative efciency of 20.0% at 1332 keV.
The sources were prepared using a standard liquid solution
supplied by CIEMAT (Madrid, Spain) that contains:
241
Am, 109Cd, 57Co, 139Ce, 85Sr, 137Cs, 88Y, and 60Co.
The point source was obtained gradually by pipetting and
drying aliquots of 10 mL of standard solution onto a thin
metallic support until a total volume of 110 mL had been
deposited. The point source was about 5 mm in diameter,
and was located at a distance of 20.3 cm from the detector.
The diameter of the cellulose lter was 4.6 cm, and the 250mL Marinelli source was lled with distilled water. Both
these sources were placed just above the detector.
During the measurements, the dead time never exceeded
1%, and the corresponding corrections were estimated
using the ADC live time. Coincidence summing corrections
were carried out for 60Co and 88Y, following a well-known
procedure [10]. For the efciency estimation, photon
emission probabilities were taken from [11].
Because of the inaccuracy in the detector dimensions
provided by the manufacturer, the detector parameters
were optimized by measuring point sources at different
positions and comparing the experimental efciency values
with those obtained by simulation with DETEFF, using
the procedure followed by Hurtado et al. [12]. The nominal
and optimized parameters are listed in Table 3.
The results for the three geometry setups are given in
Table 4 as the relative deviation between the computed and
experimental efciencies. The f.e.p efciency values computed with DETEFF and those estimated experimentally
for the three source congurations are plotted in Fig. 5.
One can see that the agreement between experimental
and calculated efciencies is good in the low- and highenergy ranges for all three geometries studied. Relative
Table 3
Detector dimensions as specied by the manufacturer (nominal) and after
optimization
Detector parameter

Nominal (mm)

Optimized (mm)

Ge-crystal diameter
Ge-crystal length
Frontal Ge dead layer thickness
Lateral Ge dead layer thickness
Ge-crystal to Al cryostat distance
Inner hole diameter
Inner hole depth
Lateral Al holder thickness
Frontal Al holder thickness
Frontal Al cryostat thickness
Lateral Al cryostat thickness
External diameter of Al cryostat

48.0
57.0
1.00
1.00
5.5
12.0
45.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
75.0

47.8
57.0
1.05
1.40
5.7
12.5
46.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
75.0

ARTICLE IN PRESS
N.C. Daz, M.J. Vargas / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 586 (2008) 204210

210

Table 4
Relative deviations between the values of f.e.p. efciency calculated with
DETEFF and those obtained experimentally for the different source
geometries considered
Energy (keV)

59.54
88.03
122.06
165.86
514.01
661.66
898.04
1173.5
1332.5
1836.06

Deviation (%)
Point

Filter

Marinelli

1.55
1.45
2.80
0.49
2.79
0.19
1.30
1.26
0.15
3.39

1.34
2.96
1.99
0.00
1.91
1.61
1.25
1.20
0.17
3.39

2.93
2.88
2.35
0.35
0.94
0.35
1.99
1.56
1.17
3.92

veried by optimizing the dimensions of a coaxial p-type

HpGe detector.
The new improved version of the Monte Carlo program
DETEFF constitutes an useful tool for efciency calibration of gamma-ray detectors in routine-measurement
laboratories, by obviating the need for the usual experimental calibrations for many different sample congurations. It is readily applicable to a wide variety of samples
(point, rectangular, disk, cylindrical, and Marinelli geometries) measured with coaxial gamma-ray detectors. The
program is a dedicated code, designed specically for the
computation of gamma-ray detector efciency, and is
therefore much more user-friendly and less time consuming
than generalist MC programs which are intended for a
wide range of applications.
Acknowledgments

Efficiency

0.1

Thanks are due to the Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia

(Spain) for the nancial support (Research Project
FIS2004-03155). The authors also wish to thank to
Mr. Danyl Perez Sanchez for his valuable suggestions
and contributions during the validation work on the
previous versions of DETEFF. One of the authors (N.C.)
also wishes to thank the research group GERN of the
Department of Physics of the University of Extremadura
for hosting him during the research related to this work.

Marinelli

Filter

0.01

0.001
Point 20 cm

References
0.0001
100

1000
Energy (keV)

Fig. 5. Values of the full-energy peak efciency calculated with DETEFF

(dots) and those obtained experimentally (triangles) for the three source
geometries considered. The dashed lines connect the experimental values.

deviations are o3%, except those for 1836.06 keV which

are somewhat greater, although o4%. This slight difference for 1836.06 keV is explained by the aforementioned
effect of bremsstrahlung photons which are not followed
by the code. However, as can be noted from Table 4, this
deviation is systematic, so it could be signicantly reduced
by applying the efciency transfer method [4].
6. Conclusions
The efciencies given by DETEFF for several sample
geometries (point, cylindrical, and Marinelli sources) and a
typical HpGe detector agreed very well in the range
401800 keV with those obtained using the well-known
generalist program MCNP4C, indicating the correctness of
the physics algorithms implemented in DETEFF. The
validity of the code using experimental sources was also

[1] N. Cornejo D az, D. Perez Sanchez, Validacion teorica y experimental del codigo DETEFF para el calculo de la eciencia de
sistemas gamma espectrometricos, in: IV congreso regional IRPA
sobre seguridad radiologica y nuclear, Tomo 2, Seccion 6, Habana,
1998.
[2] M.J. Vargas, A.F. Timon, N.C. D az, D.P. Sanchez, J. Radioanal.
Nucl. Chem. 253 (3) (2002) 439.
[3] M.J. Vargas, A.F. Timon, N.C. D az, D.P. Sanchez, Appl. Radiat.
Isot. 57 (2002) 893.
[4] M.J. Vargas, N.C. D az, D.P. Sanchez, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 58 (2003)
707.
[5] J.F. Briesmeister, MCNPA General Monte Carlo N-Particle
Transport Code, Version 4C, CCC-700, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 2000.
[6] M.J. Berger, J.H. Hubbell, S.M. Seltzer, J.S. Coursey, D.S. Zucker,
XCOM: Photon Cross-section Database (version 1.2), National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1999.
[7] C.J. Everett, E.D. Cashwell, Approximation for the inverse of the
KleinNishina probability distribution, LA-4448 UC-32 University
of California, Los Alamos Scientic Laboratory, 1979.
[8] M.C. White, Photoatomic Data Library MCPLIB04: A New
Photoatomic Library Based on Data from ENDF/B-VI Release 8,
LANL Internal Memorandum X-5:MCW-02-111 and LAUR-031019, 2002.
[9] K.J. Adams, Electron Upgrade for MCNP4B, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, 2000 (LA-UR-00-3581, NM 87545).
[10] B. Quintana, F. Fernandez, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 46 (1995) 961.
[11] R.B. Firestone, Table of Isotopes, eighth ed., Wiley, New York, 1996.
[12] S. Hurtado, M. Garc a-Leon, R. Garc a-Tenorio, Nucl. Instr. and
Meth. A 518 (2004) 764.