See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330119250

A method for gamma background subtraction using Visual Basic for

Applications code with Microsoft Excel

Article  in  Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry · January 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s10967-018-06411-7

CITATIONS READS

2 667

5 authors, including:

Jose Antonio Suarez-Navarro Ll. Pujol

Centro Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas
34 PUBLICATIONS   282 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   501 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Antonio Suarez-Navarro on 28 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2019) 319:1159–1163
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-018-06411-7

A method for gamma background subtraction using Visual Basic

for Applications code with Microsoft Excel
J. A. Suarez‑Navarro1   · Ll. Pujol2 · M. J. Suarez‑Navarro3 · M. Arana1 · G. Hernáiz1

Received: 1 November 2018 / Published online: 3 January 2019

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Abstract
This work proposes a method for gamma background subtraction by combining several background spectra acquired during
short-term measurements (100,000 s). A dedicated Visual Basic code has been developed, that performs an energy correction
due to gain drifts, via interpolation of the counts, and finally a summation of several background spectra. Three interpolations
were tested: linear, quadratic and cubic, from which the linear was selected after checking the Gaussian fit and accuracy of
the areas of the resulting photopeaks. The activity concentration results using the proposed algorithm in two intercomparable
exercises and different matrices showed the reproducibility of the proposed method.

Keywords  Gamma spectrometry · Background fluctuation · Genie-2000 · Microsoft Excel · HPGe detector

Introduction background subtraction, it is necessary to make sufficiently

The availability of gamma detectors in environmental radio-
activity laboratories is influenced by: (1) acquisition times,
due to the limits of detection that must be achieved, (2)
having a high number of samples to analyze, and (3) the
number of detectors in the laboratory. On the other hand,
the activity determination is based on two separate measure-
ments (background and sample measurement) over which
time the natural background can fluctuate [1]. The variable
contribution to the background is due to cosmic radiation,
radon and its progeny [2], and other lesser variables due to
laboratory construction materials [3], shielding, and detector
constitutive material [4]. Therefore, to carry out a correct
Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this
article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1096​7-018-06411​-7) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* J. A. Suarez‑Navarro
ja.suarez@ciemat.es
1
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y
Tecnológicas (CIEMAT – Dpto. Medio Ambiente), Avda.
Complutense 22, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2
Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas
(CEDEX), Alfonso XII, 3, 28014 Madrid, Spain
3
Departamento de Hidráulica, Energía y Medioambiente,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, ETSI Caminos, Profesor
Aranguren, s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
long measurements, at least as long as the sample with the
longest counting time (about 600,000 s) and a high periodic-
ity [1]. In the case of the gamma spectrometry laboratory
of the Environmental Radioactivity Unit for Radiological
Vigilance (URA and VR) of the CIEMAT, the background is
measured every 6 months with a counting time of 600,000 s.
In routine laboratory practice, the most recent background
is subtracted from the sample measurement. The factors
described below make the planning of routine measurements
a difficult process.
In the gamma spectrometry technique it is not advisable
to directly sum the spectra because the possible system gain
drifts that take place, mainly in the preamplifier and detector
due to changes in atmospheric pressure and environmental
temperature, produce resolution losses and enlargement of
the photopeaks [5]. These drifts can be corrected though
the following methods: (1) with reference photopeaks from
a reference source; (2) by generating electrical pulses [6], or
(3) by mathematical adjustments [7], which allow the spec-
tra to be added together. Initially, the spectra were summed
by manually adjusting the gains and saving the sum of the
spectra into the analyzer memory [8]. Bossew proposed a
method based on mathematically correcting the displace-
ments, fitting the energy calibration equations to one of the
spectra [9]. The adjusted channels were decimal numbers
so it was necessary to interpolate the counts from each
channel by selecting the linear interpolation for simplicity.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

1160
Nevertheless, the function necessary to interpolate the
counts from each channel before totaling the spectra had
to fulfill two conditions: (1) that it correctly reproduced the
spectrum baseline, and (2) that it correctly fit the photopeak
of the spectrum. The optimal way to estimate the baseline of
the spectrum is equivalent to the procedure for determining
the baseline of a photopeak when the area of the photopeak
is determined. The different functions for determining the
baseline of the spectrum are: linear [10]; a polynomial equa-
tion [11, 12]; an exponential function [13]; or by smoothing
the counts [14]. Among these functions, that developed by
Quittner [15, 16] should be highlighted. It consists of ini-
tially determining the slope parameters of the continuum in
the photopeak environment through quadratic adjustments
to evaluate the parameters of the cubic equation with which
the baseline of the spectrum is adjusted.
Taking into account the above, our working hypothesis
is that the activity concentration of the samples suppressing
the gamma background, by means of a spectrum obtained
by adding together several background spectra (100,000 s),
correcting possible displacements using energy calibration
equations, is statistically comparable to that which results
from using a single background spectrum, whose meas-
urement time is equal to that of the sum of the individual
spectra. The aim of this work is, therefore, to develop an
algorithm using Visual BASIC for Microsoft Excel Appli-
cations through the Canberra Nuclear DataAccess Library
[17] to add together different background spectra that can
be used by the Genie 2000 software. For this, it is necessary
to: (1) study which is the best interpolation for calculating
the counts from each channel; (2) verify that the photopeaks
obtained do not broadening; and (3) check that there are no
significant differences between the activity concentration
values obtained by the proposed method and that typically
used by gamma spectrometry laboratories.
Experimental
Laboratory description and detectors
The gamma spectrometry laboratory of the Environmental
Radioactivity Unit for Radiological Vigilance (URA y VR)
of CIEMAT (Research Center for Energy, Environmental
and Technology) has ten high-purity germanium detectors
(Table S1.1, see appendix S1). All of the detectors are con-
nected to five chains consisting of ten HV power supplies,
ten spectroscopy amplifiers, and ten ADCs from Canberra
Industries. Spectra were recorded via five acquisition inter-
face modules (AIMs) (Canberra Industries) to the computer
memory, and were analyzed using the standard Canberra
Genie 2000 software package. The detectors are in a room
located in the basement of a 50-year old building. The
13
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2019) 319:1159–1163
temperature is stabilized at 21 °C by an air-conditioning sys-
tem, and the room is continuously ventilated with fresh air.
The radon concentration in the laboratory fluctuates between
5 and 134 Bq m−3, with an average value of 35 Bq m−3.
Visual basic code used for spectra summing
Appendix S2 details the code developed in Visual Basic for
Applications that was used for gamma background spec-
tra summing. In addition, the algorithm is mathematically
developed and the implementation and features of the code
were described. A further description of the Genie 2000
CAM file can be found in [18].
Photopeaks selected
The photopeaks selected in this work correspond to main
gamma emitters present in the gamma background: (1) due
to the material in the detector and shield: 77.1 keV (BiKα1)
and 238.6 keV (212Pb); (2) structural laboratory materials:
1460.8 keV (40K); (3) cosmic radiation: 558.5 keV (114*Cd);
(4) radon daughters: 295.2 keV (214Pb), 351.9 keV (214Pb),
609.3 keV (214Bi) and 1764.5 keV (214Bi) and (5) the anni-
hilation peak: 511 keV.
Selecting the interpolation function for the counts
from each channel
Linear, quadratic and cubic functions were studied for
interpolating the counts from each channel, considering the
most widely used functions for estimating the baseline of
the spectrum when the background of a particular photo-
peak is corrected. The interpolation function was selected
by employing two tests. The first test determined the Gauss-
ian goodness-of-fit in the calculated counts for each channel
using the statistic χ2 given that the Gaussian function best
reproduces a gamma photopeak [19]. The selected interpo-
lation is that which gives a critical value of χ2 below the
number of degrees of freedom, corresponding to the chan-
nels that make up the peak, and which is closest to 0. The χ2
parameter was calculated using InteractivePeakFit in Genie
2000 [20]. Once it had been verified that the shape of the
peaks was correct, a second study was undertaken consisting
of comparing the areas obtained by applying the proposed
algorithm with those obtained by summing the individual
spectra. The areas were compared by measuring the degree
of overlap between the areas obtained for a coverage factor
of k = 2.
Study of the peaks broadening
The proposed algorithm adjusts the possible displace-
ments of the energies of the spectra due to gain drifts which
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2019) 319:1159–1163 1161
would produce a broadening in the photopeaks. For this
purpose, the algorithm considers the energy calibration of
the first spectrum as a reference and corrects the possible
displacements of the other spectra (see Appendix S2 for
more details). It is important to note that all spectra need
to have been calibrated in energy. Therefore, a study was
carried out of the possible broadening of the FWHM with
increasing energy over the range of energy studied. This
study allows verification of whether the spectrum obtained
can be analyzed using the Genie 2K software package. In
this study two curves of the FWHM as a function of energy
were compared:
(a) the curve obtained by the proposed algorithm applied
to background spectra;
(b) the curve corresponding to the peak shape calibration.
Curve a was prepared using the peaks shown in the previ-
ous section.
Application of the proposed method for gamma
background subtraction
The proposed method was applied to three materials of dif-
fering composition from two proficiency tests: (1) a water
sample, (2) an ash sample, and (3) a soil sample. The sam-
ples were provided by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and the Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear of
Spain (CSN).
The activity concentrations obtained with the proposed
method and the current method of background suppression
were compared using the statistical criterion Enumbers (Eq. 1).
The results were compared by checking the Enumber. The
Enumbers take into account the absolute deviation of the activ-
ity concentration value reported by each laboratory from the
reference value together with the combination of expanded
uncertainties associated with them [21]:
A − A0
Enumbers = √
( )2
u(A)2 + u A0
where A is the laboratory results, A0 is the assigned reference
value, u(A) is the expanded uncertainty of the laboratory’s
result (k = 2) and u(A0) is the expanded uncertainty of the
assigned reference value (k = 2).
Results and discussion
Selecting the interpolation function for the counts
from each channel
The values of χ2 for the 77.1, 351.9, 609.3, 1460.8, and
1764.5 keV photopeaks of the final spectrum, obtained
after applying the algorithm in 10 detectors, were similar.
The lowest average value was obtained for the linear fit
(see Tables S3.1, S3.2, and S3.3, see appendix S3). In
all cases the values obtained from χ 2 for 10 degrees of
freedom, which is equivalent to the 11-channel average
of the photopeaks for a background spectrum, were lower
than the critical value of χ2 corresponding to 18.31. On
the other hand, the linear fit gave the closest values of χ2
to 0 for the three interpolations of the 5 photopeaks and
the 10 detectors.
Supplementary Tables S4.1 to S4.9  (see appendix
S4) show a comparison of the areas obtained using the
proposed algorithm for the three interpolations (linear,
quadratic and cubic) for the 10 laboratory detectors for
each of the selected background photopeaks. The percent-
age of statistically indistinguishable values between the
areas computed through the proposed algorithm and those
obtained with the direct summation, for a coverage factor
of k = 2, were higher than 80% for the three interpola-
tions. The smallest overlap was obtained for the annihila-
tion peak of 511 keV; however, since this peak was not
used for the calculation, the radionuclide activity does not
imply inconvenience. In the other cases, the percentage
of overlap was equal to or greater than 90%, meaning the
proposed algorithm allows us to determine the areas of the
main gamma photopeak with the same accuracy as that
obtained with a background of 600,000 s.
Based on the results obtained in the two previous
tests, the linear interpolation was selected as having good
Gaussian fit in the determined channels and being as accu-
rate as a typical background spectrum, in other words, one
with a count time of 600,000 s.
(1)
Study of the peaks broadening
Figure 1 shows FWHM as a function of energy for a spec-
trum obtained with the proposed algorithm for one of the
10 laboratory detectors and that of the energy calibration
of the detector itself. Detector 10 was selected as it had
the most background counts in the various photopeaks and
for which more backgrounds were measured (see Tables
S4.1 to S4.9, see appendix S4), in order to have an equiva-
lent amount of counts in the photopeak areas between the
two curves. The algorithm was executed using the linear
13

1162 Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2019) 319:1159–1163

possible to locate the photopeaks and calculate the area

with the conditions equivalent to any spectrum, and, in
addition, the background suppression can be undertaken
correctly using the Genie 2000 software.

Application of the proposed method for gamma

background subtraction

Table 1 shows the reference activity concentration, the

Fig. 1  FWHM (keV) as a function of energy (keV) in the calibration
curve from detector 10 and that obtained using the proposed algo-
rithm
interpolation selected in the previous section. The two
curves exhibit the expected behavior and although there
is a slight increase in FWHM with respect to the curve
prepared with the background spectra from 800 keV (dif-
ference of 9.25% for 1850 keV), for lower energies FHWM
is less (a difference of 21.63% for 50 keV). Therefore, the
proposed algorithm provides a spectrum with an FWHM
equivalent to the energy calibration. In this way, it is
activity concentration reported with the actual subtraction
method (see “Experimental” section for more details), and
the activity obtained by applying the proposed method in
the proficiency tests organized by IAEA and CSN.
The results obtained were compared following the sta-
tistical E numbers criterion. In the ash sample, equivalent
results were obtained, although those obtained using the
current method can be considered more reproducible when
the values are less significantly different. In the case of
the soil sample, the results obtained using the proposed
method were more reproducible as the current method
returned 2 significantly different values and one with a
large deviation (E N  > 1.5). For the water sample, the
results were equivalent.

Table 1  Results of reference Proficiency test Matrix Radionuclide Reference Original target activ- Proposed method
activity, the activity reported activity ity (Bq Kg−1) activity (Bq Kg−1)
with the traditional method (Bq Kg−1)
for gamma subtraction and the Activity ENumber Activity ENumber
activity obtained by applying
214
the proposed method, and their CSN 2014 Ashes Pb 27.9 ± 4.7 24.7 ± 6.7 0.39 25.1 ± 1.5 0.57
corresponding accuracies Bi 214
25.8 ± 5.0 23.7 ± 5.0 0.30 28.4 ± 1.3 0.50
210
Pb 20.4 ± 2.9 22.3 ± 2.4 0.50 23.28 ± 0.71 0.96
212
Pb 19.2 ± 2.5 22.4 ± 3.4 0.76 21.08 ± 0.90 0.71
228
Ac 6.6 ± 1.2 6.98 ± 0.77 0.26 7.86 ± 0.34 1.01
208
Tl 3163 ± 320 3612 ± 109 1.33 3408 ± 218 0.63
40
K 8.06 ± 0.77 7.66 ± 0.45 0.45 7.39 ± 0.25 0.83
134
Cs 8.40 ± 0.80 8.85 ± 0.60 0.45 8.74 ± 0.23 0.41
60
Co 7.94 ± 0.85 8.60 ± 0.72 0.59 8.94 ± 0.16 1.16
57
Co 27.9 ± 4.7 24.7 ± 6.7 0.39 25.1 ± 1.5 0.57
228
IAEA-TEL-2014 Soil Ac 12.1 ± 1.5 11.47 ± 0.36 0.41 11.25 ± 0.32 0.55
212
Bi 15.9 ± 2.4 12.20 ± 0.66 1.49 13.87 ± 0.99 0.78
214
Bi 270 ± 27 290.9 ± 3.3 0.77 267 ± 20 0.09
40
K 19.6 ± 4.5 21.6 ± 3.2 0.36 18.0 ± 1.8 0.33
210
Pb 12.2 ± 1.5 10.89 ± 0.63 0.81 11.36 ± 0.28 0.55
212
Pb 16.8 ± 2.0 13.11 ± 0.54 1.78 15.44 ± 0.90 0.62
214
Pb 15.9 ± 4.9 10.5 ± 1.1 1.08 12.83 ± 0.92 0.62
234
Th 4.10 ± 0.70 3.75 ± 0.12 0.49 3.96 ± 0.13 0.20
208
Tl 12.00 ± 0.40 11.75 ± 0.13 0.59 11.50 ± 0.37 0.92
137
Cs 12.1 ± 1.5 11.47 ± 0.36 0.41 11.25 ± 0.32 0.55
Water 06 226Ra 37.5 ± 3.2 40.3 ± 5.8 0.07 40.1 ± 4.1 0.03

Uncertainties are quoted for k = 2

13
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2019) 319:1159–1163 1163
Conclusions
The method proposed for subtracting the gamma background
when calculating the activity concentration in the samples
using a spectrum obtained by summing several background
spectra produces an activity concentration that is statisti-
cally comparable to the method usually used in gamma
spectrometry labs. The algorithm developed allows several
background spectra to be added together, with displacements
being corrected by means of energy calibration equations.
The most important aspect of the algorithm developed was
the interpolation that is necessary to calculate the counts
once the possible displacement of the spectrum has been cal-
culated. We tested linear, quadratic, and cubic interpolations
as these are used to determine the baseline of the spectrum
when the gamma background is suppressed. We selected
the linear interpolation, since the Gaussian fit of the spe-
cific counts and photopeak areas were reproducible. Since
the proposed algorithm is applied to background spectra
summation, if it is used to sum up spectra containing more
complex photopeaks, its reproducibility must be verified.
The final spectrum obtained was used by the Genie 2000
software as the FWHM value is equivalent to the energy cal-
ibration of the detectors. The proposed method was validated
using three samples of two intercomparable exercises, with
the same results being obtained as for the current gamma
background suppression method.
Compliance with ethical standards  building material activity concentrations. Appl Radiat Isot 142:1–
Conflict of interest  The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Dragounová L, Rulík P (2013) Low level activity determination
by means of gamma spectrometry with respect to the natural back-
ground fluctuation. Appl Radiat Isot 81:123–127
2. Banjanac R, Dragic A, Udovicic V, Jokovic D, Maletic D, Vesel-
inovic N, Savic M (2014) Variations of gamma-ray background
in the Belgrade shallow underground low-level laboratory. Appl
Radiat Isot 87:70–72
3. Wasim M, Arif M, Zaidi J (2010) Statistical data analysis of
gamma-ray background spectra for quality assurance purposes.
Nucleus 47(1):55–60
4. Bucar K, Korun M, Vodenik B (2012) Influence of the thorium
decay series on the background of high-resolution gamma-ray
spectrometers. Appl Radiat Isot 70(6):1005–1009
5. Pratt T, Luther M (1971) A study of germanium-lithium drifted
gamma spectrum shapes. Nucl Instrum Methods 92(3):317–323
6. Schroettner T, Kindl P (2010) Long term comparison of methods
to sustain energy calibration in low level gamma-ray spectroscopy
and investigation of possible sources for drift. Appl Radiat Isot
68(1):164–168. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprad​iso.2009.08.018
7. Hurtado S, García-León M, García-Tenorio R (2006) A revision
of energy and resolution calibration method of Ge detectors. Nucl
Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc
Equip 564(1):295–299
8. Hertogen J, De Donder J, Gijbels R (1974) Experimental data
on photopeak integration methods in activation analysis. Nucl
Instrum Methods 115(1):197–212
9. Bossew P (2005) A very long-term HPGe-background gamma
spectrum. Appl Radiat Isot 62(4):635–644
10. Covell D (1959) Determination of gamma-ray abundance directly
from total absorption peak. Anal Chem 31(11):1785–1790
11. Routti JT, Prussin SG (1969) Photopeak method for the computer
analysis of gamma-ray spectra from semiconductor detectors.
Nucl Instrum Methods 72(2):125–142
12. Kokta L (1973) Determination of peak area. Nucl Instrum
Methods 112(1):245–251. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/0029-
554X(73)90803​-3
13. Helmer R, Heath R, Putnam M, Gipson D (1967) Photopeak anal-
ysis program for photon energy and intensity determinations: Ge
(Li) and NaI (Tl) spectrometers. Nucl Instrum Methods 57:46–57
14. Westmeier W (1981) Background subtraction in Ge (Li) gamma-
ray spectra. Nucl Instrum Methods 180(1):205–210
15. Quittner P (1969) Precise peak area determination for Ge (Li)
detectors. Anal Chem 41(11):1504–1506
16. Quittner P (1969) Peak area determination for Ge (Li) detector
data. Nucl Instrum Methods 76(1):115–124
17. CANBERRA (2002) Programing library user’s manual of model
S560 GenieTM 2000. Canberra Industries, Inc., Meriten
18. Suárez-Navarro JA, Gascó C, Alonso MM, Blanco-Varela MT,
Lanzon M, Puertas F (2018) Use of Genie 2000 and Excel VBA
to correct for γ-ray interference in the determination of NORM
7. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprad​iso.2018.09.019
19. Mariscotti MA (1967) A method for automatic identification
of peaks in presence of background and its application to spec-
trum analysis. Nucl Instrum Methods 50(2):309–320. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/0029-554x(67)90058​-4
20. CANBERRA (2009) Interactive peak fit user’s manual. Model
S506. Canberra Industries, Meriten
21. ISO (2005) Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by
interlaboratory comparisons. International organization for stand-
ardization, Geneva
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13
Supporting Information

Appendix S1. Characteristics of the HPGe gamma detectors used in this work
Table S1.1 Parameters for the detectors used in this work

Inner Inner Inner

Resolution Relative Crystal Crystal Outer
shielding- shielding- space Shielding
Detector Model Type at 1.33 efficiency at diameter length shielding
1 1st layer 2nd layer shielding composition
MeV (keV) 1.33 MeV (%) (mm) (mm) (cm) 3
(Cu) (mm) (Zn) (mm) (dm )
01 GC2518 Coaxial 1.72 25.0 52 54 15 1.5 1.5 25 Pb
03 BE5030 Broad Energy 1.83 48.0 80 30 15 2.0 1.5 25 Pb
04 GX4020 Extended Range Coaxial 1.85 42.1 61 60 15 2.0 1.5 25 Pb
07 GXI0022 Extended Range Coaxial 2.04 115.7 84 72 15 3.0 - 25 Fe
10 GC3521 Coaxial 1.83 29.0 57 56 15 1.0 1.0 45 Pb
40 GR2920 Reverse Electrode Coaxial 1.76 29.2 53 60 15 - - 25 Fe
50 GR3321 Reverse Electrode Coaxial 2.04 35.5 58 60 15 - - 25 Fe
60 GR4022 Reverse Electrode Coaxial 2.05 46.8 66 51 15 2.0 1.5 25 Pb
80 GX3519 Extended Range Coaxial 1.73 36.0 62 47 15 - - 25 Fe
90 BE50360 Broad Energy 1.84 48.0 80 30 15 2.5 1.5 25 Pb
1
A thickness of 150 mm iron or lead is sufficient to stop terrestrial radiation (Dragounová and Rulík, 2013).

1
Appendix S2 – Visual basic code used for spectra summing.

S2.1. Visual Basic code developed

Const Order As Integer = 1

Public Sub ReadFilesFromDirectory()

Dim directory As String
Dim sFile As String
Dim iRow As Integer
Dim mat() As String
directory = ThisWorkbook.Path
ReDimmat(0)
iRow = 1
sFile = Dir(directory & "\*.cnf")
Do WhilesFile<> ""
If mat(0) = "" Then
mat(0) = directory & "\" &sFile
Else
ReDim Preserve mat(UBound(mat) + 1)
mat(UBound(mat)) = directory & "\" &sFile
End If
sFile = Dir
iRow = iRow + 1
Loop
SumOfSpectramat()
End Sub

Private Sub SumOfSpectra(ByRefmatFiles() As String)

Dim a1, a2, b1, b2 As Double
Dim time, liveTime As Double
Dim mEs, mT As Variant

2
Dim spAs New CanberraDataAccessLib.DataAccess
Dim spT As New CanberraDataAccessLib.DataAccess
Dim enT, chT, chI, cCounts As Double
Dim x, x1, x2, x3 As Double
Dim i, j, k, l As Integer
Dim y As Double
sp.OpenmatFiles(UBound(matFiles)), dReadWrite
a1 = sp.Param(CAM_F_ECOFFSET)
b1 = sp.Param(CAM_F_ECSLOPE)
time = sp.Param(CAM_X_EREAL)
liveTime = sp.Param(CAM_X_EREAL)
mEs = sp.Spectrum
For i = 0 To UBound(matFiles) - 1
spT.OpenmatFiles(i), dReadOnly
a2 = spT.Param(CAM_F_ECOFFSET)
b2 = spT.Param(CAM_F_ECSLOPE)
time = time + spT.Param(CAM_X_EREAL)
liveTime = liveTime + spT.Param(CAM_X_ELIVE)
mT = spT.Spectrum
For l = 0 To UBound(mT)
chT = (a1 - a2 + (b1 * (l + 1))) / b2
chI = Fix(chT)
cCounts = 0
If chI + 2 <UBound(mT) - 2 And chI> 0 Then
For k = 0 To Order
y=1
For j = 0 To Order
If j <> k Then
y = y * (chT - (chI + j)) / ((chI + k) - (chI + j))
End If
Next
cCounts = cCounts + (y * mT(chI + k - 1))

3
 Next
mEs(l) = mEs(l) + Fix((b2 / b1) * cCounts)
End If
Next
spT.Close
Next
sp.Param(CAM_X_EREAL) = time
sp.Param(CAM_X_ELIVE) = liveTime
sp.Spectrum = mEs
sp.Save Replace(matFiles(UBound(matFiles)), Dir(matFiles(UBound(matFiles))),
"SpectraSum.CNF"), True
sp.Close
Set spT = Nothing
Set spectra = Nothing
End Sub

S2.2. CAM File

Genie 2000 stores the data in a file with a *.CNF extension when a sample is counted. This file
contains two kinds of data: parameters and spectral data that are separated into classes of
information that are considered to be independent of the data in other classes. The classes of
information contain the parameters that refer to: acquisition, sample, geometry, processing,
peaks, calibration, nuclide identification, etc. The spectral data is treated differently since it is
handled as in a typical matrix configuration. All these data are controlled by subroutines
collectively called the Configuration Access Method [1]. In this work, we only access the
individual parameters and spectral data.

S2.3. Algorithm description

The algorithm developed allows n spectra to be summed. Each spectrum has an energy
calibration equation that is defined by (1):

4
𝐸1 = 𝑎1 + 𝑏1 ∙ 𝑖
𝐸2 = 𝑎2 + 𝑏2 ∙ 𝑗
(1)
⋮
𝐸𝑛 = 𝑎𝑛 + 𝑏𝑛 ∙ 𝑧

where where i,j,...,ii are the channels of each spectrum comprises between 1 and 4096 channels.
The equation of the first spectrum of n spectra is given by the expression:

𝐸 (𝑖+1)
𝑐(𝑖) = ∫𝐸 1(𝑖) 𝑓(𝐸) 𝑑𝐸 (2)
1

The discrete function for f(E) is obtained by equation (1), resulting in:

𝑐1 (𝑖)
𝑓(𝐸) = (3)
𝑏1

To sum the following spectrum (n=2) to the spectrum (n=1) you have to know the value of c2(j)
corresponding to this f(E). The value of c2(j) is obtained through the energy calibration equations
(1) giving:

𝑎1 −𝑎2 +𝑏1 ∙𝑗
𝑐ℎ𝑇 = (4)
𝑏2

The value obtained from chT is decimal and between ⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋ and ⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋ + 1, with ⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋ being the
non-decimal part of chT closest to zero. Therefore, the linear interpolation used by [2] is given by:

𝑓(𝐸1 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋+1))−𝑓(𝐸1 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋))

𝑓(𝐸1 (𝑐ℎ𝑇 )) = 𝑓(𝐸1 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋)) + ∙ (𝐸1 (𝑐ℎ𝑇 ) − 𝐸1 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋)) (5)
𝐸1 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋+1)−𝐸1 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋)

The continuous function (5) becomes discrete, analogous to that produced with functions (2) and
(3), and the following expression is obtained:

𝑏 𝑐2 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋+1)−𝑐2 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋)

𝑐1 (𝑐ℎ𝑇 ) = 𝑏1 ∙ (𝑐2 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋) + (𝑐ℎ𝑇 − ⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋) ∙ (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋+1)−⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋
) (6)
2

Interpolations of an order equal to or greater than 2 can be obtained with a Lagrangian

polynomial using the expression:

𝑏 𝑐ℎ𝑇 −(⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋+𝑏)

𝑐1 (𝑐ℎ𝑇 ) = 𝑏2 ∙ ∑𝑎 (∏𝑏≠𝑎 (⌊𝑐ℎ ) ∙ 𝑐2 (⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋ + 𝑎) (7)
1 𝑇 ⌋+𝑎)−(⌊𝑐ℎ𝑇 ⌋+𝑏)

5
where a and b correspond to the order of the polynomial and the other terms have been
previously defined. By means of Equation 7 it is also possible to obtain the linear interpolation
defined above using expression (6).

S2.4. Features of the code

The code has two procedures (in italics) called “ReadFilesFromDirectory” and “SumOfSpectra”.

The first procedure read files in the directory in which the Excel file is contained, and generates a
matrix with the paths of the background file spectra by using the Dir function.

The second procedure called SumOfSpectra takes the matrix of files generated and calculates the
sum of the spectra. A spectrum file is opened as follows: first, a DataAccess is defined using the
CanberraDataAccessLib [1] and, then Open method is called by passing a string parameter that
corresponds to the pathname of a file. At this point, an appropriate energy calibration correction
is necessary to adjust a possible energy calibration displacement due to temperature changes or
electronic adjustments. To this end, the code uses the energy calibration curve parameters to
correct any difference between the two curves. The fixed coefficients of the curve from the last
file of the matrix are considered as the reference values, and are obtained by using the
CAM_F_ECOFFSET and CAM_F_ECSLOPE parameters that represent the energy calibration offset
and slope of the curve, respectively. Other parameters considered were the measuring live time
(CAM_X_ELIVE), measuring real time (CAM_X_EREAL) and acquisition date (CAM_X_ASTIME),
which were used to obtain the total measuring time and the date of the output file. The output
file is generated as follows: the last file of the matrix is considered as the reference file to
transform it finally into the output file and to get the necessary parameters, a next-for loop
containing a nested loop were built. The principal loop was used to read the parameters
contained in the matrix with the paths of the spectrum files. The nested loop has three functions:
i) to make corrections in the energy calibration for each file read, ii) to transform the channels of
the reading spectrum file according the corrected energy calibration, and iii) to sum the counts of
each transformed channel into the output file.

The code has an integer constant defined as Order, which is used to establish the order of the
polynomial chosen to perform the interpolation. Users who utilize this code can modify the
constant according to their criteria.

6
S2.5. Implementation of the code

To implement the code (see Annex) on a PC it is necessary to install Genie 2000 to access the
dynamic libraries (*.dll). First, you have to access the macro development environment by hitting
Alt+F11 in Microsoft Excel. Next you have to add the Canberra Nuclear DataAccess Library
reference in the Tools-References menu. The code can be entered by creating a module (Insert-
Module menu) and copying or writing the code from the Annex. To execute the code, click on the
macro icon in the Developer menu by selecting the ReadFilesFromDirectory macro. The
background spectra (*.cnf) must be located in the same directory as the Microsoft Excel file.

S2.6. Appendix references

1. CANBERRA (2002) Programing Library User's Manual of Model S560 GenieTM 2000. Canberra
Industries, Inc.,
2. Bossew P (2005) A very long-term HPGe-background gamma spectrum. Applied Radiation and
Isotopes 62 (4):635-644

7
Appendix S3 – Average values of χ2for photopeaks at 77.1 keV (BiK1), 351.9 keV (214Pb), 609.3
keV (214Bi), 1460.8 keV (40K), and 1764.5 keV (214Bi) after applying the algorithm with linear (Table
S3.1), quadratic (Table S3.2), and cubic (Table S3.3) interpolations.

Table S3.1. χ2 values for the linear interpolation in 77.1 keV (BiK1), 351.9 keV (214Pb), 609.3 keV
(214Bi), 1460.8 keV (40K) and 1764.5 keV (214Bi) photopeaks in the ten detectors from the
laboratory for the final spectrum after applying the proposed algorithm.

Detector 77.1 keV 351.9 keV 609.3 keV 1460.8 keV 1764.5 keV Average
D01 0.9 0.82 1.6 0.97 0.71 1.00
D03 0.18 1.9 0.71 0.25 0.72 0.75
D04 0.13 1.1 0.86 3.2 1.7 1.40
D07 2.7 0.76 0.64 0.49 0.76 1.07
D10 1.9 2.3 0.52 1 0.6 1.26
D40 1.3 0.82 1.4 1 1.2 1.14
D50 1.1 1.3 1.1 1 0.92 1.08
D60 0.9 0.82 1.6 0.97 0.71 1.00
D80 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.43 0.99 1.06
D90 1.4 1.1 0.34 1.2 0.54 0.92
Average 1.17 1.23 1.01 1.05 0.89 1.07

Table S3.2. χ2 values for the quadratic interpolation in 77.1 keV (BiK1), 351.9 keV (214Pb), 609.3
keV (214Bi), 1460.8 keV (40K) and 1764.5 keV (214Bi) photopeaks in the ten detectors from the
laboratory for the final spectrum after applying the proposed algorithm.

Detector 77.1 keV 351.9 keV 609.3 keV 1460.8 keV 1764.5 keV Average
D01 0.9 0.84 1.6 1.1 0.92 1.07
D03 0.32 2.1 0.76 0.29 0.94 0.88
D04 0.21 1.6 1.3 4.6 1.7 1.88
D07 2.7 0.74 0.66 0.55 1.1 1.15
D10 1.9 2.3 0.5 0.97 0.6 1.25
D40 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.24
D50 1 1.2 1.1 0.98 1.4 1.14
D60 0.9 0.84 1.6 1.1 0.92 1.07
D80 1.4 1.5 1.3 0.4 1.1 1.14
D90 1.8 1.2 0.32 1.3 0.69 1.06
Average 1.24 1.34 1.05 1.24 1.07 1.19

8
 2 214
Table S3.3. χ values for the cubic interpolation in 77.1 keV (BiK1), 351.9 keV (
Pb), 609.3 keV
214 40 214
( Bi), 1460.8 keV ( K) and 1764.5 keV ( Bi) photopeaks in the ten detectors from the
laboratory for the final spectrum after applying the proposed algorithm.

Detector 77.1 keV 351.9 keV 609.3 keV 1460.8 keV 1764.5 keV Average
D01 0.64 0.87 1.6 1.2 0.87 1.04
D03 0.56 2.3 0.8 0.4 1.3 1.07
D04 0.36 2.1 1.7 4.4 1.7 2.05
D07 2.7 0.77 0.5 1 0.66 1.13
D10 1.9 2.3 0.5 1 0.66 1.27
D40 1.4 0.88 1.5 1 1.4 1.24
D50 1.1 1 1.04 1.18 1.17 1.10
D60 0.92 0.87 1.6 1.2 0.87 1.09
D80 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.49 1.2 1.18
D90 1.9 1.1 0.42 1.3 0.78 1.10
Average 1.30 1.37 1.09 1.32 1.06 1.23

9
Appendix S4 – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra (Tables S2.1 to S2.9).

Table S4.1. – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for BiKα1 (77.1 keV).

Number of BiKα1 (77.1 keV)

Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 1194 ± 152 966 ± 72 1017 ± 72 1012 ± 72
03 11 1645 ± 206 1912 ± 357 1929 ± 94 1903 ± 95
04 15 2699 ± 270 2415 ± 139 2409 ± 138 2402 ± 138
07 7 1741 ± 168 1632 ± 151 1631 ± 103 1630 ± 216
10 19 7807 ± 167 7859 ± 169 7867 ± 169 7864 ± 169
40 13 7976 ± 25 8261 ± 248 8269 ± 250 8266 ± 250
50 10 1102 ± 20 1085 ± 102 1088 ± 102 1084 ± 102
60 11 1342 ± 30 1171 ± 95 1171 ± 95 1170 ± 95
80 12 4318 ± 180 4816 ± 163 4805 ± 161 4787 ± 160
90 9 2097 ± 16 1889 ± 70 1926 ± 70 1890 ± 70
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

Table S4.2. – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for 212Pb (238.6 keV).

212
Number of Pb (238.6 keV)
Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 987 ± 138 934 ± 135 937 ± 135 930 ± 212
03 11 412 ± 103 265 ± 117 280 ± 117 278 ± 117
04 15 1460 ± 246 1428 ± 151 1417 ± 149 1429 ± 150
07 7 572 ± 98 531 ± 121 531 ± 119 534 ± 119
10 19 10881 ± 163 10852 ± 164 10866 ± 164 10872 ± 164
40 13 7155 ± 218 7181 ± 272 7177 ± 308 7176 ± 302
50 10 1345 ± 186 1467 ± 97 1463 ± 97 1467 ± 97
60 11 925 ± 190 795 ± 86 797 ± 85 798 ± 85
80 12 2339 ± 279 2854 ± 48 3356 ± 157 3353 ± 96
90 9 985 ± 125 715 ± 148 757 ± 148 778 ± 148
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

10
Table S4.3. – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for 214Pb (295.2 keV).
214
Number of Pb (295.2 keV)
Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 3690 ± 173 3548 ± 173 3461 ± 150 3443 ± 150
03 11 2960 ± 148 2959 ± 155 2964 ± 155 2958 ± 155
04 15 5487 ± 278 5653 ± 314 5664 ± 314 5668 ± 314
07 7 4056 ± 159 3967 ± 171 3990 ± 160 3963 ± 171
10 19 12426 ± 279 12487 ± 294 12472 ± 294 12480 ± 294
40 13 7581 ± 215 7507 ± 219 7493 ± 219 7501 ± 219
50 10 3863 ± 216 3839 ± 202 3847 ± 202 3852 ± 202
60 11 2609 ± 130 2822 ± 101 2825 ± 101 2828 ± 101
80 12 4596 ± 360 4157 ± 302 4162 ± 302 4165 ± 302
90 9 2813 ± 172 2471 ± 154 2462 ± 154 2452 ± 154
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

Table S4.4. – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for 214Pb (351.9 keV).
214
Number of Pb (351.9 keV)
Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 6101 ± 245 6112 ± 163 6256 ± 154 6128 ± 163
03 11 5160 ± 154 5352 ± 148 5357 ± 148 5350 ± 148
04 15 9909 ± 270 9751 ± 317 9745 ± 317 9745 ± 317
07 7 7328 ± 160 7289 ± 184 7286 ± 184 7289 ± 184
10 19 21181 ± 272 20692 ± 258 20698 ± 258 20700 ± 258
40 13 13366 ± 230 13371 ± 225 13379 ± 225 13396 ± 225
50 10 6943 ± 199 6801 ± 209 6804 ± 209 6807 ± 209
60 11 4830 ± 187 4898 ± 182 4909 ± 182 4903 ± 182
80 12 7262 ± 313 7137 ± 286 7128 ± 287 7141 ± 287
90 9 4389 ± 141 4401 ± 143 4393 ± 143 4386 ± 143
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

11
Table S4.5. – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for β+/β- (511 keV).

Number of β+/β- (511 keV)

Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 15089 ± 562 15951 ± 189 15931 ± 189 15924 ± 189
03 11 15745 ± 188 15019 ± 184 15026 ± 184 15031 ± 184
04 15 24171 ± 285 23997 ± 282 24010 ± 282 24006 ± 282
07 7 24285 ± 221 24426 ± 223 24438 ± 223 24440 ± 223
10 19 46642 ± 301 46512 ± 298 46534 ± 298 46528 ± 298
40 13 29445 ± 244 29556 ± 245 29565 ± 245 29572 ± 245
50 10 13954 ± 200 14357 ± 202 14353 ± 202 14352 ± 202
60 11 27106 ± 247 27313 ± 253 27315 ± 253 27302 ± 253
80 12 18430 ± 288 15989 ± 240 16009 ± 240 15994 ± 240
90 9 16115 ± 180 15195 ± 177 15226 ± 177 15229 ± 177
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

Table S4.6. Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for 114*Cd (558.46 keV).

114*
Number of Cd (558.46 keV)
Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 882 ± 78 813 ± 116 760 ± 91 763 ± 85
03 11 761 ± 94 775 ± 99 766 ± 99 768 ± 99
04
07
10 19 6106 ± 172 5810 ± 106 5809 ± 90 5807 ± 79
40 13 3198 ± 144 3111 ± 156 3106 ± 156 3109 ± 156
50
60 11 3950 ± 130 4170 ± 131 4174 ± 130 4174 ± 131
80
90 9 3081 ± 116 3105 ± 116 3123 ± 110 3088 ± 116
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

12
Table S4.7. – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for 214Bi (609.3 keV).
214
Number of Bi (609.3 keV)
Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 4559 ± 109 4434 ± 137 4424 ± 137 4431 ± 137
03 11 3511 ± 107 3393 ± 112 3388 ± 112 3383 ± 112
04 15 8192 ± 203 8018 ± 195 7938 ± 185 7971 ± 174
07 7 5910 ± 166 6024 ± 162 6029 ± 161 6028 ± 161
10 19 17290 ± 222 17615 ± 229 17616 ± 229 17618 ± 229
40 13 10453 ± 197 10376 ± 175 10368 ± 175 10368 ± 175
50 10 5452 ± 144 5553 ± 151 5549 ± 150 5550 ± 151
60 11 3647 ± 120 3811 ± 122 3805 ± 122 3807 ± 122
80 12 4901 ± 390 5324 ± 180 5326 ± 180 5328 ± 180
90 9 3255 ± 116 3225 ± 121 3236 ± 115 3245 ± 115
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

Table S4.8. – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for 40K (1460.8 keV).

40
Number of K (1460.8 keV)
Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 458 ± 50 577 ± 62 583 ± 64 577 ± 64
03 11 351 ± 48 473 ± 60 449 ± 60 461 ± 60
04 15 14376 ± 148 14434 ± 152 14434 ± 152 14428 ± 152
07 7 1519 ± 75 1477 ± 79 1475 ± 79 1476 ± 79
10 19 14680 ± 156 14724 ± 167 14715 ± 167 14723 ± 167
40 13 5906 ± 111 5991 ± 118 5991 ± 117 5983 ± 117
50 10 5368 ± 95 5346 ± 97 5341 ± 97 5318 ± 92
60 11 2578 ± 76 2614 ± 84 2672 ± 87 2667 ± 87
80 12 12790 ± 640 12895 ± 137 12894 ± 137 12880 ± 137
90 9 1159 ± 67 1195 ± 73 1192 ± 73 1198 ± 73
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

13
 Table S4.9. – Comparison between the areas obtained by means of the various interpolation
functions used (linear, quadratic, and cubic) and the area obtained by directly summing the
spectra for 214Bi (1764.49 keV).

214
Number of Bi (1764.49 keV)
Detector background Direct Lineal Quadratic Cubic
spectra summation Interpolation interpolation interpolation
01 12 695 ± 48 724 ± 52 736 ± 52 740 ± 52
03 11 412 ± 41 577 ± 53 579 ± 51 582 ± 53
04 15 2931 ± 78 3025 ± 90 3038 ± 90 3028 ± 90
07 7 1161 ± 62 1238 ± 78 1238 ± 71 1235 ± 71
10 19 4758 ± 102 4823 ± 108 4845 ± 108 4866 ± 108
40 13 2486 ± 74 2558 ± 89 2557 ± 89 2545 ± 89
50 10 1426 ± 58 1492 ± 59 1493 ± 59 1486 ± 61
60 11 1122 ± 66 1167 ± 66 1159 ± 66 1179 ± 66
80 12 2072 ± 75 2101 ± 78 2109 ± 78 2106 ± 78
90 9 661 ± 54 627 ± 57 624 ± 57 620 ± 57
The uncertainties are quoted for k=2.

14

View publication stats