## 3 Results and Discussions
### Glow Curve Analysis  
The experimental TL glow curve obtained from the plagioclase samples irradiated with a dose of 50 Gy is shown in Figure 4 with a black square symbol. It can be stated that this experimental glow curve consists of two visible luminescence peaks: a sharp peak around 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C and a shoulder-shaped peak around 200 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Although the TL glow curve appears to consist of two distinct peaks, a more detailed analysis of the glow curve is necessary. Therefore, the TL glow curve was deconvoluted using the CGCD method with the TLanal program.  
Figure 4 shows the TL glow curve of the plagioclase sample irradiated with 50 Gy of beta radiation along with the deconvoluted TL peaks obtained using the CGCD method with the TLanal (v1.0.3) program. Table 2 also shows the parameters of the deconvoluted glow peaks, the figure of merit (_FOM_), and deviation values for each peak individually.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Peaks** & **T\({}_{\textbf{M}}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **E (eV)** & **s (s\({}^{-1}\))** & **b** & **FOM (\%)** & **Deviation** \\ \hline P1 & 83 & 0.842 & \(3.08\times 10^{12}\) & & & \\ P2 & 112 & 0.848 & \(2.23\times 10^{14}\) & & & \\ P3 & 163 & 0.852 & \(8.08\times 10^{13}\) & \(1.5\) & 0.867 & 0.016 \\ P4 & 216 & 0.857 & \(2.15\times 10^{12}\) & & & \\ P5 & 277 & 0.890 & \(1.65\times 10^{12}\) & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: TL kinetic parameters of the deconvoluted TL glow curve obtained by the CGCD method for the plagioclase mineral irradiated at a 50 Gy dose.  
Figure 4: Deconvoluted TL glow curve of the plagioclase irradiated with 50 Gy of beta radiation.  
The quality of deconvolving the TL glow curve into its basic glow peaks is determined by the _FOM_ value, and the expression used to calculate this value where Y\({}_{i}\) is the input value and F\({}_{i}\) is the best fit value of the TL intensity at temperature T\({}_{i}\) is provided below [28]:  
\[FOM(\%)\ =\ \frac{\frac{\sum\limits_{i}|Y_{i}-F_{i}|}{\sum\limits_{i}Y_{i}}}{ \sum\limits_{i}Y_{i}}x100 \tag{1}\]  
A lower _FOM_ indicates a better quality of fitting, with the ideal _FOM_ being 0, achieved only with a perfect fit. However, _FOM_ values below 1% are generally considered acceptable, taking into account various experimental and theoretical errors in the glow curve measurements and fitting processes [29; 30; 31]. _FOM_ values exceeding 2% suggest substantial errors in the fitted results.  
As seen in Table 2, the FOM value calculated from the deconvolution of the TL glow curve for the samples under investigation is 0.867, indicating that the deconvolution process is of reasonably good quality. Furthermore, the overlap of the experimental and fitted glow curves shown in Figure 4, along with the deviation value of 0.016 calculated for the deconvolution process, indicates that the deconvolution process is of very high quality.  
As seen in Figure 4 and Table 2, the TL glow curve obtained from the samples irradiated with a radiation dose of 50 Gy consists of five different glow peaks with general-order kinetics (b = 1.5). The peak temperatures of these glow peaks are located around 83, 112, 163, 216, and 277 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The activation energies (or trap depths) calculated for the peaks as a result of the deconvolution are close to each other, ranging between 0.842 eV and 0.890 eV. The frequency factors (attempt to escape factors) corresponding to the electron traps for each glow peak are presented in Table 2, with values ranging from 1.65 \(\times\) 10\({}^{12}\) s\({}^{-1}\) to 2.23 \(\times\) 10\({}^{14}\) s\({}^{-1}\).