## 3 Results
### Analysis and Structure of TL Emission from Phosphate Glasses
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Peak Type** & \(\beta\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C/s) & **E (eV)** & **T\({}_{\text{m}}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **s (s\({}^{-1}\))** & **\(\sigma\) (eV)** & **b** & **FOM** \\ \hline Peak 1 (Disc:FOK) & & 0.79 & 54.9 & \(5.05\times 10^{10}\) & – & – & \\ Peak 2 (Cont:Exp) & & 2.03 & 99.7 & \(2.20\times 10^{26}\) & 0.000 & – & \\ Peak 3 (Cont:Exp) & 0.5 & 0.98 & 103.7 & \(5.14\times 10^{11}\) & 0.005 & – & 2.17\% \\ Peak 4 (Cont:Gaus) & & 0.67 & 133.1 & \(4.99\times 10^{6}\) & 0.075 & – & \\ Peak 5 (Disc:GOK) & & 0.83 & 235.9 & \(3.12\times 10^{6}\) & – & 2.00 & \\ \hline Peak 1 (Disc:FOK) & & 0.79 & 60.9 & \(5.93\times 10^{10}\) & – & – & \\ Peak 2 (Cont:Exp) & & 2.03 & 102.7 & \(2.62\times 10^{26}\) & 0.000 & – & \\ Peak 3 (Cont:Exp) & 1 & 0.98 & 112.6 & \(4.87\times 10^{11}\) & 0.005 & – & 4.48\% \\ Peak 4 (Cont:Gaus) & & 0.64 & 143.4 & \(2.50\times 10^{6}\) & 0.073 & – & \\ Peak 5 (Disc:GOK) & & 0.8 & 260.8 & \(1.12\times 10^{6}\) & – & 2.00 & \\ \hline Peak 1 (Disc:FOK) & & 0.79 & 70.8 & \(5.06\times 10^{10}\) & – & – & \\ Peak 2 (Cont:Exp) & & 2.03 & 107.6 & \(2.25\times 10^{26}\) & 0.004 & – & \\ Peak 3 (Cont:Exp) & 2 & 0.98 & 123.5 & \(4.08\times 10^{11}\) & 0.000 & – & 4.99\% \\ Peak 4 (Cont:Gaus) & & 0.58 & 162 & \(3.41\times 10^{5}\) & 0.054 & – & \\ Peak 5 (Disc:GOK) & & 0.86 & 270.7 & \(6.73\times 10^{6}\) & – & 2.00 & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Fitting results and traps parameters obtained for PPG glass samples irradiated with radiation dose of ca. 10 kGy and heating rates (\(\beta\)) of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C/s. shifts were monitored in relation to the applied heating rate. Analysis was performed according to the known VHR based correlation of the TL peak position and heating rate, which can be described by Equation (11) [49]:  
\[\frac{\text{E}}{\text{kT}_{\text{m}}^{2}}=\frac{\text{s}}{\beta}\exp\left(- \frac{\text{E}}{\text{kT}_{\text{m}}}\right) \tag{11}\]  
where all symbols are as described previously. Equation (11) can be easily linearized, and the obtained dependencies of \(\ln\left(\text{T}_{\text{m}}^{2}/\beta\right)=\text{f}(1/\text{T})\) for PPG glass samples are presented in Figure 11. As mentioned above, due to limited thermal conductivity of the samples, it was very difficult to correlate results obtained from the higher heating rates, for which calculated values of departed significantly from linearity. Such prepared data allowed for experimental verification of the values obtained during deconvolution procedure. For all presented dependencies, one can observe purely linear correlations, whose slopes allowed for experimental determination of the energies of trapping centers, presented in Table 6 together (for comparison) with those obtained from deconvolution procedure. In most cases, the presented values are fully convergent, with only higher discrepancy observed for Peak 3, in which case the value obtained from VHR method was ca. 15% lower than that from deconvolution analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Peak**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**E (eV)**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **Deconvolution** & **VHR** \\ \hline Peak 1 & 0.79 & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.11 \\ Peak 2 & 2.03 & 2.03 \(\pm\) 0.29 \\ Peak 3 & 0.98 & 0.83 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ Peak 4 & 0.63 & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.10 \\ Peak 5 & 0.83 & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.23 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of energies of trapping centers present in PPG glass sample. Figure 11: Results from VHR method obtained for PPG glass samples for three different heating rates of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C/s. Taking into account the data from Tmax-Tstop and VHR experiments, it seems that structure of the TL signals in terbium-doped phosphate glasses should exhibit similar behavior as observed in case of pure PPG glass.