SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Dark Matter Directionality Approach Using ZnWO4 Crystal Scintillators

by V. Caracciolo, V.Ya. Degoda, P. Belli, R. Bernabei, Yu.A. Borovlev, F. Cappella, R. Cerulli, F.A. Danevich, A. Incicchitti, A. Leoncini, V. Merlo, N. Cherubini, D.V. Kasperovych, Ya.P. Kogut, G.P. Podust, O.G. Polischuk, A.G. Postupaeva, V.N. Shlegel and V.I. Tretyak

This is not the latest submitted version.

This Submission thread is now published as

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Pierluigi Belli · Vincenzo Caracciolo
Submission information
Preprint Link: scipost_202209_00061v1  (pdf)
Date submitted: 2022-09-28 13:52
Submitted by: Caracciolo, Vincenzo
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: 14th International Conference on Identification of Dark Matter (IDM2022)
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
Specialties:
  • Gravitation, Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
  • High-Energy Physics - Experiment
  • Nuclear Physics - Experiment
Approach: Experimental

Abstract

The development of low-background anisotropic detectors can offer a unique way to study those Dark Matter (DM) candidate particles able to induce nuclear recoils through the directionality technique. Among the anisotropic scintillators, the ZnWO4 has unique features and is an excellent candidate for the purposes. Both the light output and the scintillation pulse shape depend on the impinging direction of heavy particles with respect to the crystallographic axes and can supply two independent modes to study the directionality and discriminate γ/β radiation. Measurements to study the anisotropic and scintillation performances of ZnWO4 are reported.

Current status:
Has been resubmitted


Submission & Refereeing History


Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 2 on 2022-11-8 (Invited Report)

Weaknesses

This is a summary of already published works. The references are mostly to their previous works. The proof of principle of such approach was already proved in 2020, but no future plans are presented with a timeline in this manuscript.

Report

Requires revision and improvement.

Requested changes

- "The Q.F.’s reported in Ref. [21] are in suitable congruity with those of Ref. [20], as pointed out in Fig. 1-right." please explain the difference lead to this result.
- Is there is something new you can add? Future plans? Current status?
- Please mention other studies on this subject, explain the difference (if there is).

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Author:  Vincenzo Caracciolo  on 2022-11-24  [id 3065]

(in reply to Report 2 on 2022-11-08)
Category:
answer to question

Answers to the REVIEWER

We thank the Referee for the advice to improve the paper's quality. In the following, we attach the answers to the questions and comments.
All the revisions made to the manuscript have been marked up using the blue colour as a track change to be easily viewed by the editors and the reviewer.

Anonymous Report 2 on 2022-11-8 (Invited Report)
Weaknesses

Answer: This is a summary of already published works. The references are mostly to their previous works. The proof of principle of such an approach was already proved in 2020, but no future plans are presented with a timeline in this manuscript.
As the talk given at the IDM22 conference, the proceeding summarises the results achieved in several years of R&D and measurements about the topic of the Dark Matter Directionality Approach Using ZnWO4 Crystal Scintillators. In fact, besides the results achieved in 2020, we also reported the latest developments after a very long R&D in order to increase the optical and scintillation features of ZnWO4 crystals; the relative paper has been recently published (2022). In addition, following the referee's suggestion, we improved the manuscript with a new version that addresses plans. Following the referee's comments, we also mention other studies on this subject, briefly explaining the differences.
Report
Requires revision and improvement.
Requested changes

Point 1. "The Q.F.’s reported in Ref. [21] are in suitable congruity with those of Ref. [20], as pointed out in Fig. 1-right." please explain the difference lead to this result.
Answer point1:
The measurements achieved in the refs. [26] and [27] of the new version of the manuscript, as pointed out by the referee, are in good agreement. However, some deviation could be even possible because of impurities or the entire procedure of building crystals. Such an anisotropic capability is mainly because, in this type of crystal scintillator, the highly ionizing particles, as nuclear recoils, generate different amounts of excitons in such a direction with respect to the crystallographic planes.

Point 2. Is there is something new you can add? Future plans? Current status?
Answer point 2: We have added a new paragraph at the end of the manuscript and highlighted it in blue.

Point 3. Please mention other studies on this subject, explain the difference (if there is).
Answer point 3: We have added a new paragraph at the end of the manuscript and highlighted it in blue.

Attachment:

idm22_crc.pdf

Login to report or comment