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

net/publication/249325844

Towards Photon Counting X-Ray Image Sensors

Article · June 2010

DOI: 10.1364/IS.2010.ITuA2

CITATIONS READS

3 243

4 authors, including:

Bart Dierickx Patrick Henckes

Caeleste Belgium Caeleste
160 PUBLICATIONS 2,277 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bart Dierickx on 31 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Towards photon counting X-ray image sensors
B. Dierickx1,2, B. Dupont1, A. Defernez1, P. Henckes1
1
Caeleste CVBA, Generaal Capiaumontstraat 11, 2600 Antwerp, Belgium. Tel. +32478299757
[email protected]
2
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium

Abstract
The advantages of photon counting over charge integration, for medical X-ray imaging, are
known. Yet the realization is hindered by technical and economical factors. The question that we
try to answer is: what does it take to make a photon counting X-ray sensor?
©2010 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (110.7440) X-ray imaging; (040.7480) X-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet; (030.5260) Photon counting

1 Introduction
Present state of the art medical X-ray imagers are all of the charge integrating type. Although in theory photon
counting is the superior technique, photon counting X-ray imagers appeared only in a few high-end high added
value applications. The key reason for that is that photon counting pixels and detectors are significantly more
complex and expensive than integrating detectors.
The questions that we try address in this paper are: is it worthwhile to pursue photon counting in medical X-ray, and
what does it take to make a photon counting medical X-ray sensor?

CERN [1-2] pioneered the possibility of monolithic Si photon/particle counting pixel detectors in nuclear physics,
for high energy particles, under which also gamma and X-rays. For applications in medical X-ray one needs to use
heavy detector materials, thus leading to direct detectors [3-7] or indirect detectors (scintillators). Hybridization of
heavy direct detectors on Silicon poses the question of commercial viability of such devices. Manufacturable
solutions may require direct detectors that can be deposited in a layers as amorphous Se, or as sheets as many
indirect detectors or scintillators.

2 The Physics of detection

2.1 Direct and Indirect X-ray detection
X photon X photon 100000
>100V mean f ree path [af ter http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRef Data/ ]
Typical
Si (14) tissue or
water specimen
10000 thickness
Se (34)
CsI
CdTe
1000
Gd2O2S
Visible photons
(fluorescence) Bi4GeO12
MFP [µm]

Excited electron Excited electron 100

Electron-hole cloud Electron-hole cloud Realistic
detector
thickness
Charge collection 10
By electric field

Si photodiode X-ray photon energy [eV]

1
Si charge 1000 10000 100000 1000000
sensitive amplifier Si charge
sensitive amplifier
Medical X-ray range
↑Figure 1 Schematic comparison of the principle operation of a direct detector (left) and an indirect ↑Figure 2 Mean free path (≈absorption
detector or scintillator (right). The physics of detection (absorption) is the same: an X-ray photon, length) of X-rays vs. photon energy, in the
by Compton scattering or Photoelectric Effect, excites an inner shell electron of a material atom. most popular direct detectors (Si, α-Se,
This primary electron has a considerable kinetic energy, which it looses by creating a trace of CdTe) and scintillators (CsI, Gd2O2S).
secondary electron-hole pairs. In a direct detector, one collects these electrons (or holes, Also shown is the absorption in water, that
depending on the applied polarity of the field) by an electrical contact to a charge sensitive is representative for biological tissue.
amplifier in a ROIC (readout IC) underneath the detector. In an indirect detector, the secondary Bi4GeO12 is shown too because this is the
electrons decay back to their ground state, thereby emitting visible photons in random directions most efficiently absorbing scintillator
(“fluorescence”). Photons may be absorbed by the photodiode in the ROIC underneath the material, consisting of the highest Z
scintillator, and create there ternary electron-hole pairs that are sensed by the charge sensitive element (Bi) and having a high density
amplifier. (7.13 g/cm3).
2.2 Desired detector properties
It is clear that indirect detection is much less efficient than direct detection in terms of overall conversion of X-
photons to effectively collected electrons. A medical X-ray detector should be an efficient absorber. This translates
to material with high Z-number and high mass density.
collected charge per X-photon Figure 3 Collected charge per X-photon, versus X-photon
100000
energy, for few of the most relevant direct and indirect
detectors. For direct detectors this is a straightforward
derivation. For the scintillator based detectors we made
10000 All direct
the quite optimistic assumption that the system has an
CdTe overall quantum efficiency of 50%, from fluorescent light
detectors have
charge packet [e-]

nearly same InP emission to charge collection in the visible light

performance Se photodiode.
1000 Si
GaAs
CsI
BGO A second key performance criterion is the
100 ZnSe
Typical pulse
Scintillators efficiency of conversion of X-photons to
shaper noise Gd2O2S
using ideal secondary (or ternary) electrons that are
floor LaBr3
50%QE diodes
NaBiW2O8 sensed in the readout circuit.
10
1 10 X-photon energy 100 [keV] 1000
Table 1 lists other performance parameters.
Table1: Direct detection versus Scintillation
Direct detection Indirect detection (Scintillator + Si photodiode)
Desired properties High Z (atom number) High Z (atom number)
High specific density High specific density
Low fluorescence High fluorescence
High resistivity semiconductor Transparent for visible light
High carrier mobility optical confinement e.g. by needle-like crystals
Preferred materials CdTe, CdZnTe, InP, Se, … CsI, LaBr3, Gd2O2S, LuOS, Bi4GeO12, HgI, ...
MTF Nearly perfect Issues due to optical diffusion
X-ray to electron In the order of 1electron per 5eV X- Overall eV-to-electrons is at least 10x worse than
conversion ray direct detection
Best Light output: 1 visible photon per 12 to 30eV
Transmission efficiency in scintillator: 10% to 50%
QE of ROIC Si diodes: 40% to 90%
Conversion and Collection times and peak durations CsI and Gd2O2S have 1µs decay time; several other
collection speed are in the order of few ns scintillators are faster (10…100ns)
Physical nature ⇒ Monocrystalline hybrids ⇒ (poly-) Crystal sheet
⇒ Amorphous / polycrystalline ⇒ Powder sheet
deposition
Safety High applied bias voltage.
Max detector Limited by detector material Limited by internal optical absorption and light
thickness thickness only diffusion
Energy separation good Due to internal optical absorption, large fluctuation
(color X-ray) on packet size vs. energy
Main limit on DQE Material thickness; thus close to Scintillators have a thickness limit related to internal
100% is possible light absorption and light diffusion affecting MTF.

3 The advantages of photon counting over charge integrating detectors

3.1 Color X-ray
Although spectroscopic, multi-energy or “color” X-ray imaging is possible with classic charge integrating digital
detectors [8-11], it requires multiple exposures, which may not be acceptable for reason of total dose or motion
artifacts. In a photon counting device, each photon can be “weighted” and thus counted per energy range, without a
total dose cost.
3.2 Sharpness recovery
Information on the coincidence of pulses on neighbor pixels yields the real point of incidence of the X-photon [12].
 3.3 Quantum limited performance
1000 ←Figure 4 Noise versus signal for X-ray pixels, comparing a charge integrating
pixels and a photon counting pixel. Both signal and noise are expressed in “X-
noise (counter)
photons”. The analog charge integration system is limited by read noise (here
noise (integration)
equivalent to 3 X-photons) and an overall achievable analog dynamic range (here
3000:1). A photon counting system does not have these limitations if one
100 disregards counter depth limitation and counting speed saturation.
noise equivalent X-photons

Charge comparator
packet
Pulse counter MUX
Light shaper
10 reference
flash Analog V Binary
pulse train pulse train Detector
output
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Figure 5 Typical photon counting pixel functional flow, which is reflected in
signal [X-photons] circuit topologies.

4 Photon counting readout circuit limitations

4.1 Pixel Topology
Most published counting pixel topologies [1-7; 12-15] correspond to the scheme in Figure 5. Pixel pitches (100µm
to 500µm) depends on pixel complexity and CMOS technology (0.18µm to 0.8µm).
With hybrid direct detectors, the charge packet contains several 1000s of electrons (Figure 3). With indirect
detection, the pulse shaper becomes a critical part as charge packets are only a few 100 electrons large.
4.2 ,oise
Apart from the inherent, device noise (thermal noise, MOSFET 1/f noise etc.) [14], a major designer concern is the
electromagnetic interference noise, or the feedback of the digital part of the comparators, counters and the
multiplexing to the extremely sensitivity pulse shapers [15].
4.3 Yield
Photon counting architectures have significantly more complex pixels than charge integrating solutions. Whereas
passive and active pixels have 1 up to 7 transistors per pixel, a digital photon counting pixel has several hundreds [1-
7], of which the largest part is the digital counter.
We expect Si manufacturing yield and circuit design techniques to improve in the medium future to allow such
arrays to be manufactured in reasonably large arrays (larger than 1dm2) with good yield.
4.4 Counter speed saturation
Counter speed limited by: scintillator decay time, photodiode charge collection time and the readout circuit speed.

References
[1] R. Ballabriga, M. Campbell, E. H. M. Heijne, X. Llopart, and L. Tlustos, “The Medipix3 Prototype, a Pixel Readout Chip Working in Single
Photon Counting Mode With Improved Spectrometric Performance”, IEEE Trans Nuclear Science, vol.54, no.5 (2007)
[2] X. Llopart, M. Campbell, R. Dinapoli, D. San Segundo, and E. Pernigotti, “Medipix2: a 64-k Pixel Readout Chip With 55-µm Square
Elements Working in Single Photon Counting Mode”, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol.49, no.5, Oct.2002
[3] P. Pangaud et al. “XPAD3: A new photon counting chip for X-Ray CT-scanner”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Vol
571, Issues 1-2, 2007, Pages 321-324
[4] K. Spartiotis & al.“A photon counting CdTe gamma- and X-ray camera”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, vol.550,
p.267-277, Sept 2005, energy optimization for chest imaging”, Med. Phys. 34 (10), Oct. 2007
[9] T. Asaga, C. Masuzawa, A. Yoshida, et al. ”Dual-energy subtraction mammography”. J Digit Imaging 1995 vol.8 p.70-73
[10] SC Kappadath, CC Shaw. “Dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging: noise reduction techniques”, Phys Med Biol. 2008
Oct 7;53(19):5421-43. Epub 2008 Sep 2.
[11] B. Dierickx, N. Buls, C. Bourgain, C. Breucq, J. Demey, B. Dupont, A. Defernez, “On the diagnostic value of multi-energy X-ray imaging
for Mammography”, European Optical Society symposium, Munchen, 16-18 June 2009
[12] B. Dierickx, B. Dupont, A. Defernez, “X-ray image sharpening by coincidence detection”, IISW, Bergen, 26-28 June 2009
[13] M. Perenzoni, D. Stoppa, M. Malfatti, A. Simoni, “A Multi-Spectral Analog Photon Counting Readout Circuit for X-Ray Hybrid Pixel
Detectors”, IMTC 2006, Sorrento, Italy 24-27 April 2006
[14] C. Lotto and P. Seitz, “Charge Pulse Detection with Minimum Noise for Energy-Sensitive Single-Photon X-Ray Sensing”, European
Optical Society symposium, Munchen, 15 June 2009
[15] J. Lundgren, S. Abdalla, M. O´Nils, B. Oelmann, “Evaluation of Mixed-Signal Noise Effects in Photon Counting X-Ray Image Sensor
Readout Circuits”, 2005

View publication stats