Advances in High Energy Physics / 2013 / Article / Tab 1

Research Article

Charge Coupled Devices as Particle Detectors

Table 1

Comparison of the main versions of the classical and computational approach of the dark current spectroscopy (DCS) method.

The DCS method
Input dataAccepted approximationsBasic
Main evaluated parameter

  Classical DCS method (ClDCS)    
(a) McGrath et al. [28]

(b) McColgin et al.

(c) Webster et al. [35]
number of pixels versus dark current [28]
Deep-depletion mode:
Equal cross-sections:
The average cross-section
Temperature dependence of the dark current [31]Deep-depletion mode:
Traps concentration ( ) and carrier velocity ( ) from other methods [30]Deep-depletion mode:
Equal cross-sections:
The generation (emission) rate,
dependence of the generation (emission) rate [33]
Validity of the Arrhenius equation The activation energy,

  Computational DCS approach (CA-DCS)  
(a) Widenhorn et al.
[36, 37, 4756]

(b) Widenhorn et al.

(c) Widenhorn et al.
Temperature dependence of the dark current [36, 37] ,
Very deep-level traps:
The preexponential factors
Idem and Arrhenius preexponential factor dependence on the activation energy [36, 37, 4751]The validity of the Arrhenius and
Meyer-Neldel relations
The Meyer-Neldel energy and the preexponential factor
The temperature dependence of the energy gap [36, 82]Negligible effect on dark current of , relative to those of and even of  
= arg tan    
(effective parameter), 
, and
Results concerning
(effective parameter), 
, and [5254]
IdemSingle or double linear
corelations between some effective parameters
Correlations coefficients, 
medium values: 
low values: