Absorption and scattering of gamma radiation from

cesium-137: mean free paths and cross sections

J. Rable, R. Magee, and J. Schirmer
Pennsylvania State University, Department of Physics, 104 Davey Lab,
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
ABSTRACT
Measurements of gamma ray absorption and scattering offer insight
into the microscopic properties of matter. Our measurements of absorption
by lead and aluminum at various thicknesses enabled the calculation of
mean free path and absorption cross sections of the materials, giving insight
into the process of gamma absorption by them and their usefulness as
radiation blockers. We obtained mean free paths of 0.750 2.80 * 10-3 cm in
lead and 5.60 1.41 * 10-3 cm in Aluminum, as well as absorption cross
sections of 3.74 * 10-27 1.17 * 10-29 m2 for lead atoms and 3.13 * 10-28
8.21 * 10-32 m2 for aluminum atoms, which imply that the electrons, rather
than the atoms themselves, do the absorbing. In addition, by measuring the
scattering of gamma radiation off an aluminum rod at various angles, we
found evidence for elastic scattering by electrons in materials, explaining
why scattered radiation has lower energy than incident radiation. Using this
data, we also developed a method to measure electron mass, which we
measured at 415 13.1 keV/c2, and to determine the differential scattering
cross section of materials, giving a metric against which to compare

theoretical calculations. Through these comparisons, we can further validate

quantum mechanics.
I. INTRODUCTION
Gamma radiation at least partially penetrates all materials, with the
depth of penetration varying as a function of both the radiation energy and
the properties of the penetrated sample material [1]. These properties
include the mean free path through the material and the thickness of the
material. As the mean free path in a material increases, more of the gamma
radiation will manage to pass through the material, as it will have fewer
chances to interact with the atoms constituting it. Similarly, as the thickness
of a material decreases, the amount of gamma radiation passing through it
will increase, as there will also be fewer interaction opportunities present as
it passes through the material [4-5]. This results in an exponential relation
between the ratio of blocked to unblocked intensities, the mean free path,
and the thickness. The absorption of gamma radiation in a material can be
further illustrated by giving the atoms of each material sample an absorption
cross-section, a quantity dependent on the mean free path and the amount
of atoms per volume in the sample, giving insight into the microscopic
composition of matter [1].
Some of the gamma radiation that does not pass through the material,
however, must scatter off of it. Through analyzing the energy of the
scattered radiation (by measuring and subtracting out the energy of the non-

scattered radiation), one can find out how much energy from the incident
radiation transfers into the scattering material, providing a glimpse into what
occurs on a microscopic level in these materials when subject to high energy
radiation [4-5]. In addition to verifying whether or not elastic scattering is
occurring, one can also compare the values of the change in energy to a
function of the angle and measure the slope to determine off what object in
the material scattering occurs [11]. If Comptons theory is correct and the
incident radiation scatters off electrons, the slope measured should be
inversely proportional to the electron mass [2]. Furthermore, our scattering
measurements of energy versus intensity allow us to calculate the
differential cross section of the scattering material through each angle,
providing a value against which we can compare theoretical results [1, 6]. In
comparing our data to these results, one can show that quantum mechanical
derivations of cross section provide more accurate results than classically
derived derivations.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND THEORY
The attenuation length of material determines the intensity loss

through it and can be determined by the equation

r=r 0 e x , where r is the

detected count, r0 the background count, x the thickness of our material, and
is the attenuation length [8-10]. Since the mean free path l through a

material determines, statistically, that the intensity varies with

3

x
l

[8-10],

it becomes clear that attenuation length is the inverse of the mean free path
and one can obtain an equation:
x
1
=l=
r0

ln ( )
r

(1)

Absorption cross sections of atoms in a material are inversely

proportional to both the mean free path in the material and the number
density of the material, as both higher number density and longer mean free
path result in less chance of absorption of photons in the material, giving an
equation:
=

1
nl

(2)

[9,10].
One can also calculate the theoretical absorption cross section of an electron
from its classical radius using the Thomson cross section:

T , e=

8
e
=6.661029 m2
3 4 o me c 2
8 2
T=
r r=r e
3

(3)

which can be compared to our absorption cross sections, as well as the

physical cross sections of atoms, to determine its physical validity [1].

By assuming that gamma radiation scatters elastically off electrons in

a material, donating energy to the recoil of the electrons, one can derive a
simple equation for the change in wavelength of scattered photons:

1cos
h
=

mc

where

(4)

is the scattering angle, m is the mass of the electron, c is

the speed of light, and h is Plancks constant [2, 4-7]. Using our scattering
data, we can calculate the differential cross section of the scattering rod
using:
d
R
=
d Lnd

(5)

and integrating over our measured count vs. energy peak [11]. In equation
(5), R represents count rate, n represents target particle number density, L
represents beam luminosity (obtained by taking a measurement without the
rod at 0 degrees), and is the solid angle. Additionally, we can compare the
measured cross section to the fully quantum mechanical Klein Nishina cross
section, defined differentially as:
2 ( 1cos )2
1+ (1cos )
1+cos 2
d kn r 2
1
=

d 2 [ 1+ ( 1cos ) ] 2
+

(6)

 mc

(7)

where r is the radius of the particle scattering the wave, m is the mass, and

is the angle at which the scattering occurs [3, 11]. In the case of <<1,

the Klein-Nishina cross section simplifies to the Thomson cross section.

III. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
First, we procured a gamma ray source of sufficient energy cesium
137 which emits gamma rays with a known energy peak at 0.662MeV. We
selected this source because 0.662MeV lies well above the work functions of
our materials yet below the energy needed to cause pair production, both of
which could interfere with our results. Next, we developed an experimental
apparatus in order to detect the radiation emitted by our source [Refer to
FIG.1].

(a)

(b)

FIG. 1. Schematics of the experimental apparatus design. The primary piece

of the apparatus consists of a lead lined box to minimize both radiation lost
from the source and background radiation from outside. Inside this box lies a
lever arm mounted on a track. A small spot on the lever arm holds our
source, and the track is denoted with angle demarcations to determine what
angle the lever arm is at relative to our detector. This NaI scintillator detector
leads into a photomultiplier tube (PMT) mounted on the end of the lead box
opposite the source. A mount immediately in front of the detector holds
material samples for the measurement of mean free path. Similarly, another
mount meant to hold the scattering rod for angle-dependent scattering
measurements lies on the pivot point of the lever arm holding the source. A
high voltage source powers the PMT, and data from the PMT moves through
an amplifier into both an oscilloscope and multi-channel analyzer (MCA). The
MCA, a Multiport II, directly feeds results into a computer via USB port. The
oscilloscope acts to confirm that the PMT actively detects gamma radiation,
and the computer stores the data as a function of total counts (measuring
intensity) versus input channel. Design (a) measured gamma ray absorption
through blockers and (b) measured gamma ray scattering off an aluminum
rod [M. Terrones, Gamma Ray Absorption and Compton Scattering, (Pennsylvania
State University, State College, 2016)]

In order to accurately measure energy, which acts as a function of

input channel, we used a number of radioactive sources barium 133, cobalt
60, sodium 22, and cesium 137 - with known energy peaks in order to
8

calibrate our apparatus [Refer to Appendix A]. Once we measured the

uncalibrated channel of each measurable peak, we used the known value of
the peaks compared to our measured channel peaks in order to create a
linear fit for the calibrated energy:
E=1.027104 c7.606102

(8)

where E is the energy in MeV and c is the input channel, from 1 to 16384.

III.A. Mean free path measurements

In collecting our data, we used a consistent amount of collection time
1 minute - for each of our mean free path measurements. Over the course of
our experiment, we took three measurements for each blocker, plus three
measurements with no blocker. Because we wished to compare the
intensities of radiation passing through each blocker, rather than just the
energy of the peaks, we needed a constant time period so as to have an
accurate metric to compare results. Similarly, we measured background
radiation without the source but with the blocker for the same amount of
time to ensure our measured intensity comes only from our source.
III.B. Compton scattering
In measuring the energy of scattered gamma radiation, we collected
data at each angle for as long as necessary to obtain usable results, as total
count mattered less than the number of counts at each energy value.
Similarly, we took background data with the source at each angle, but

without the scattering rod, for only 10 minutes each time. This
measurement, used to filter out both background radiation and the energy
going straight from the source to the detector without scattering (or
scattering off the lead-lined box), can be scaled up to match the time period
of the overall collection without significantly impeding the accuracy of our
results.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
IV.A. Absorption Results
First, to calculate our mean free paths in lead, we averaged the
number of measured counts minus background radiation over our three
experimental runs, keeping track of our standard deviation. We also
averaged the number of counts measured with no blocker, taking the
standard deviation as our error. We then calculated the mean free paths in
lead and aluminum using equation (1), carrying through the error from the
averages of our blocker and background counts. We then averaged the
results across the varying thicknesses of each sample of material in order to
provide more accurate final results for that material. Ultimately, we obtained
a mean free path of 0.750 2.80 * 10-3 cm in lead and 5.60 1.41 * 10-3 cm
in Aluminum.
We then calculated the absorption cross sections of the materials using
the known densities of our samples and equation (2) to obtain 3.74 * 10-27
1.17 * 10-29 m2 for lead atoms and 3.13 * 10-28 8.21 * 10-32 m2 for aluminum
10

atoms [Refer to APPENDIX C for results for each sample]. The lead atomic
cross section differs by 5520% from the Thomson electron cross section,
while the aluminum atomic cross section differs by 370%. Calculating the
electron cross section by multiplying our number density by the number of
electrons per atom (82 and 13, respectively [12]), however, brings us much
closer to the Thomson cross section, with electron cross sections of 4.56 * 10 29

1.43 * 10-31 m2 for lead and 2.41 * 10-29 6.32 * 10-33 m2 for aluminum

(differing by 31.8% and 64% respectively). Our data lies even closer to the
total Klein-Nishina cross section, 3.67 * 10-29 m2 (found by integrating over
equation (6)), with only 24.3% and 34.3% errors respectively. This suggests
that, not only are electrons responsible for absorption of 662keV gamma rays
in these materials, but that the Klein-Nishina cross section provides a more
accurate result than the classical Thomson cross section.
Additionally, our measured atomic absorption cross sections differ from
the physical cross sections of the atoms, which are 7.45 * 10-20 m2 and 4.37 *
10-20 m2 [12], by over a factor of 107. This further implies that the atoms are
not absorbing the photons as a whole.
IV.B. Scattering Results
In order to analyze our scattering data, we first found the energy vs.
the intensity of our measurements by using our calibration fit in equation (8).
Then, we graphed the radiation detected and fit the energies with the
highest 10% of counts to a Gaussian. We needed to remove the bottom 90%

11

of points in order to get an accurate fit the filtered points were low energy
background noise that would have shifted our Gaussian away from the
proper peak [See FIG. 2]. The peak of our Gaussian fit provided us with a
shifted energy, which we then compared to the predicted energy at that
(a)

incident angle using equation (4) to determine that elastic scattering did
occur [See FIG. 3]. Additionally, this Gaussian fit gave us a standard

(b)

deviation, which acts as the error of our energy peaks.

12

FIG. 2. A graph of our fit Gaussians and our measured counts at (a) 0 degrees
and (b) 10 degrees. Using only the top 10% of counts for our fit filtered out
the low energy background noise, especially the points below 450keV in
these images, which added extra data at energies below our peak. This noise
would have drastically shifted our fit away from the data we were actually
interested in. [R. Magee, unpublished, (2016)]

FIG. 3. Graph of scattering angle vs. scattered photon energy. Blue data
points represent our experimental data with error, while the red curve
represents the theoretical scattered photon energy. The data matches

13

closely, but begins to drift away from theoretical calculation at larger angles,
likely because of the increasingly low probability of backscattering as one
passes 90 degrees. [R. Magee, unpublished, (2016)]
Because elastic scattering occurred, by graphing the change in energy
divided by the incident and scattered energies versus 1-cos [see FIG. 4], we
found that our radiation scattered off an object with mass 415 13.1 keV/c2.
This value comes much closer to the accepted electron mass, 511 keV/c 2 [6],
than that of the much more massive proton or neutron mass, suggesting that
electrons scattered our gamma rays. However, our result still varies by
18.8% from the accepted value of the electron mass, likely as a result of our
consistently lower than expected scattered energies at larger angles.

14

FIG. 4. Graph of energy shift divided by the product of the incident and
scattered energies vs. 1-cos. By fitting a line to our graph and measuring
the slope, as suggested by equation (4) and the de Broglie wavelength, we
found that our gamma radiation elastically scattered off a particle with mass
415 13.1 keV/c2 (the inverse of our slope). [R. Magee, unpublished, (2016)]
Additionally, using the properties of our apparatus, such as detector
hole size, distance between the source and the detector, and source
luminosity, we calculated the differential scattering cross section of the
electrons in our scattering rod with equation (5) [Refer to APPENDIX D for
more details and results]. They matched the Klein-Nishina cross section,
calculated using equation (6), fairly accurately at most values, though with
what appears to be a systemic error [see FIG. 5]. However, at 0 and 10
degrees, our data varies drastically from the Klein-Nishina results. We believe
this occurs because at these small angles, some of our gamma radiation will
pass around the rod and enter the detector (because of the small size of the
rod diameter compared to our detector and source holes), rather than
through it or scattering off it, distorting our intensity measurements.

15

FIG. 5. Graph of measured and theoretical differential cross sections versus

scattering angle, excluding data at 0 and 10 degrees, with the measured
cross section in red, Klein-Nishina cross section in blue, and the Thomson
cross section in green. The measured results have a roughly constant shift in
cross section over the Klein-Nishina theoretical calculation at all angles,
suggesting that our measurements had a source of systemic error, but still
match it better than the Thomson cross section [R. Magee, unpublished,
(2016)]
V. CONCLUSION
Our absorption mean free paths suggest that lead acts as an excellent
gamma radiation blocker while aluminum does very little to block it, opening
up potential applications in the handling and storage of radiation using these
16

materials. For example, lead could be used to store materials and create
personal protective gear, while aluminum films could be used in situations
where one wishes to block physical particles (like air) without blocking much
radiation. Additionally, they tell us that, on an atomic level, particles
travelling through lead will collide with the particles constituting the material
much more often than in aluminum. Our absorption cross section results
further suggest that the electrons in the materials are responsible for the
majority of photon absorption our measured electron cross sections vary
only slightly from the two theoretical electron cross sections, while our
measured atomic cross sections vary from the physical atomic cross sections
by massive factors. On top of this, because our results lie closer to the KleinNishina cross section than the Thomson cross section, our data further
supports quantum theory over classical theory.
Our scattering results point to a couple of interesting conclusions.
Firstly, the fact that scattering results in an angle dependent energy
decrease explains why scattered radiation penetrates less deeply into
materials, solving a longstanding mystery in physics [4].
Secondly, at 662keV, the scattering interaction between gamma
radiation and aluminum is dominated by elastic scattering off electrons,
rather than protons or neutrons. However, our results still varied from the
mass of the electron by 18.8% error, suggesting that, in the future, longer
and more precise measurements, possibly taken at smaller angular intervals
for longer times, should be used to verify that electrons are doing the
17

majority of scattering. These future measurements could further refine our

understanding of scattering while possibly providing us with a new method of
measuring the electron mass.
Thirdly, our scattering results suggest that the Klein-Nishina electron
cross section describes the differential scattering cross section of electrons
fairly accurately, though our data had a roughly constant shift in value over
it. This possibly could have been a result of our imprecise measurements of
our apparatus parameters, such as distance between source and detector.
Additionally, our results taken at 0 and 10 degrees were flawed by the small
scattering rod size relative to our detector and source holes the radiation
could move around the rod into the detector, skewing our intensity
measurements. Future experimental work could focus on more careful
measurements of the cross section, with a larger rod, better measured
apparatus, and longer runs, in order to determine whether the Klein-Nishina
cross section fully describes the electron.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this paper would like to thank M. Terrones and Z. Lin for
providing the radioactive sources for this experiment and for their help with
our experimental setup.
VII. REFERENCES

18

[1] A. H. Compton, Am. J. Phys. 29, 817 (1961)

[2] R. M. Eisberg, Fundamentals of Modern Physics, (Wiley, New York, 1961),
p. 496-513
[3] E. R. Pike and P. C. Sabatier, Scattering, (Academic, 2001), vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 11001101
[4] A. Bartlett, Am. J. Phys. 32, 120 (1964).
[5] A. Bartlett, J. Wilson, O. Lyle Jr., C. Wells, J. Kraushaar, Am. J. Phys. 32, 135 (1964)
[6] D. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, (Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 1999), p. 514-515
[7] N. Ashcroft, N. Mermin, Solid State Physics, (Harcourt College Publishers, 1976),
p. 502
[8] E. Hecht, Optics, 4th Edition, (Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, Ca, 2002), p. 128129

[9] J. Hubbel, S. Seltzer, NISTIR 5632 (1996)

[10] M. Berger, J. Hubbell, S. Seltzer, J. Chang, J. Coursey, R. Sukumar,
D. Zucker, and K. Olsen,
NBSIR 87-3597 (1998)
[11] R. Fernow, Introduction to Experimental Particle Physics, (Cambridge
University Press,
1989), p. 56-58, 115-118, 392
[12] E. Clementi, D. Raimond, W. Reinhardt, J. Chem. Phys. 47, 1300 (1967)
19

VIII. APPENDIX A: APPARATUS DESIGN

(a)

(b)

FIG. 6. Box configurations used for different measurements. Configuration (a)

was used to perform gamma ray absorption measurements the source,
Cesium-137, was positioned at 0 degrees relative to a blocker in front of the
NaI detector and PMT. Configuration (b) was used to perform scattering

20

measurements with the source positioned at various angles directed at an

aluminum rod, scattering radiation into the unblocked detector.
Our scattering rod has diameter 1 .25cm, our distance between the
scattering rod and our detector is 26.5 .25cm, and the detector hole has a
diameter of 3.75 .25cm. We required these measurements in our cross
section calculation, which depends on solid angle and target size.
IX. APPENDIX B: APPARATUS SETTINGS
On our apparatus, a number of settings were chosen specifically to
improve both the amount of data obtained and the quality of our
measurements. Firstly, our power source used to power the photomultiplier
tube was put to 0.9kV. We made this selection based on a measurement of
the amount of hits picked up at each value of energy provided by the source
in a fixed time frame (30 seconds). Upon taking multiple voltage vs. count
measurements, we ended up with a plateau-like graph, with hits maximizing
between roughly 0.8kV and 1.0kV. We selected a value near the middle of
this plateau, 0.9kV, to both ensure the largest amounts of hits possible while

21

insulating our results from small power fluctuations.

FIG. 7. Graph of counts vs. voltage used to calibrate the power supply.
Counts appear to increase until about 0.8kV, where they roughly plateau

22

until 1.0kV. After 1.0kV, detected events decreases rapidly with between 1540% per 0.1kV of additional voltage supplied. [R. Magee, unpublished,
(2016)]

23

Additionally, in order to minimize the dead time of our detector, we set

our lower threshold of detection at 5% of the total channel range, which
contains 16384 channels total. The decision to use 5% was made to
minimize the amount of background counts detected, which increased the
overall dead time of our apparatus without adding any meaningful data;
neither our main radioactive source nor our sources used for calibration had
an energy peak near our lower limit of detection. Because of the high energy
of our source relative to our lower limit of detection, even the scattered
radiation failed to approach our lower limit in future measurements, if one
wished to take data more rapidly, they could set the lower limit of detection
much higher in order to further reduce dead time. Conversely, we left our
upper limit of detection at 100% of our total energy range because such high
energy events are rare, causing little increase in dead time.
X. APPENDIX C: Scattering results for each sample
TABLE I. Lead absorption results
Sample
Thickness
(cm)

Area Density
2

(mg/cm )

Mean Free Path (cm)

Absorption Cross Section (m )

6.35 * 10

-1

7435 8.04 * 10

-1

5.39 * 10

-3

3.64 * 10

-27

2.44 * 10

-29

3.17 * 10

-1

3632 7.15 * 10

-1

2.19 * 10

-3

4.19 * 10

-27

1.28 * 10

-29

1.62 * 10

-1

1890 7.17 * 10

-1

1.33 * 10

-3

4.12 * 10

-27

7.66 * 10

-30

8.12 * 10

-2

1230 7.60 * 10

-1

4.75 * 10

-4

2.98 * 10

-27

1.86 * 10

-30

Average Values: 7.49 * 10

-1

2.35 * 10

-3

3.73 * 10

-27

1.17 * 10

-29

24

XI. APPENDIX D: Scattering cross section analysis details and ata

To calculate the differential cross section, we first needed the solid
angle of our apparatus, the luminosity of our source, our count rate, and the
number density of electrons in our scattering rod (already found for our
absorption measurements). We calculated the differential solid angle as:

d =

r2
d2

(D1)

where r was detector hole radius and d was the distance between our scattering rod
and detector hole [Refer to APPENDIX A for values].

25

The luminosity was given by total measured energy count at 0

degrees with no scattering rod divided by the total time of detection, which
was 180 seconds. We calculated total measured energy by integrating over
our intensity versus energy graph. Count rate was calculated as:

R=

NN b
Time

(D2)

where N is the total count and comes from our data taken with the rod, Nb is
the background count comes from data taken without the rod, and time is
the total amount of time that we took data for.
We could then proceed to calculate the differential cross section with
equation (5) [see TABLE III], taking the error in our counts to be N0.5 using
Poisson statistics. Error in our other values arose from uncertainty in our
physical measurements. Using these values, we could then carry through the
error using standard error algebra.

26

27