## 3 Results
### Analysis and Structure of TL Emission from Phosphate Glasses
Based on these distributions, two models are generally in use, describing dependencies of TL emission intensity vs. energy and temperature according to Equations (9) and (10):  
\[\mathrm{I^{Exp}(T)=\int_{E_{0}}^{+\infty}s\frac{n_{0}}{\sigma}\exp\left(- \frac{E-E_{0}}{\sigma}\right)\exp\left(-\frac{E}{kT}\right)\exp\left[-\frac{s }{\beta}\int_{T_{\sigma}}^{T}\exp\left(-\frac{E}{kT^{\prime}}\right)dT^{\prime }\right]dE} \tag{9}\]  
Figure 8:0  
where s (s\({}^{-1}\)) is the frequency coefficient related to the type of defect and other symbols are as described above. The models described according to Equations (5)-(10) are implemented in a dedicated glow curve deconvolution software and are described in several papers [49; 50]. The software was used for analysis of glow curves obtained during measurement of PPG sample, and graphical representation of the obtained results are presented in Figure 8:1  
The deconvolution procedure was performed in order to recognize the structure of the TL glow curve, structure, and types of defects present in the material and to estimate the energy levels of the trapping centers related to the particular TL emissions from the material. Verification of the proper localization of particular peaks was based on the consecutive analysis of the experimental data and results obtained from deconvolution analysis using the GCA (Glow Curve Analysis) software [50]. The selection between exponential and gaussian distributions for continuous type defects was made taking as a criterion the possibly lowest value of FOM (Figure of Merit) parameter, which indicates the difference between experimental data and computer-simulated glow curves based on the parameters obtained during deconvolution procedure. The commonly accepted values of FOM are usually below 5%. The results obtained during deconvolution analysis of glow curves obtained from VHR measurements of PPG glass are presented in Figure 8:2  
In Table 5, one presented only data obtained during deconvolution of TL emission curves for three lowest heating rates of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C/s. The general conclusion from these results is that all sets of data correlate quite well each other for particular peaks. For Peak 2, one can find relatively high value of the frequency factor; however, this could be due to the exponential expression used to obtain this value and based on energy of the trapping center, so even small variation in E value may lead to large variation and uncertainty in calculated value of s. It was impossible to correlate all the data obtained from deconvolution procedure with the results from VHR measurements, especially for the higher heating rates above 2 \({}^{\circ}\)C/s. It was probably due to a limited thermal conductivity of the samples (ca. 40 mg in weight, 5 mm in diameter, and ca. 1 mm thickness) and in consequence delayed response of the TL emission vs. temperature measured during samples reading. Nevertheless, the careful analysis of the available data allowed for determination of the positions of the peaks in TL emission curves for which temperature  
Figure 8:3 Results of deconvolution procedure of TL signal from PPG samples irradiated with 10 kGy radiation dose (electron accelerator, pulse duration 4 \(\mu\)s, heating rate \(\beta\) = 0.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C/s).