Results True coincidence rate (CPS) Random coincidence rate (CPS) Scatter coincidence rate (CPS) Experimental 65% 32% 3.00% Simulated F-18 (1) Activity:14.2MBq DT electronics:300ns Slice-Total time:50 ms-1s 64% 34% 2.00% Simulated F-18 (2) Activity:14.2MBq  DT electronics:300ns Slice-Total time:0 ms-1s 60% 39% 1.00% Simulated F-18 (3) Activity:14.2MBq DT electronics: 150ns Slice-Total time:10 ms-1s 71% 28.6% 0.40% Simulated F-18 (4) Activity:1.42MBq DT electronics: 150ns Slice-Total time:10 ms-1s 64% 34% 2% Simulated F-18 (5) Activity:1.42MBq DT electronics: 150ns Slice-Total time:10 ms-1s 60% 39% 1% Simulated F-18 (6) Activity:22.6MBq DT electronics: 60ns Slice-Total time:10 ms-1s 66% 31% 3% Simulated C-11 (7) Activity:22.6MBq DT electronics: 60ns Slice-Total time: 50ms-50ms 66% 31% 3% Simulated O-15 (8) Activity:22.6MBq DT electronics: 60ns Slice-Total time:50 ms- 50ms 66% 30% 4%

Table 1: Comparison of experimental and simulated true, random and scatter coincidence count rates. The experimental set (first row) was derived with a F-18 source of 1 kBq/ml activity concentration. All simulations (rows 2-9) were calculated with an energy window between 425 keV and 650 keV considering no dead-time (DT) on coincidences. Each simulation result-row (rows 2-9), indicates the simulated source type (F-18, O-15, C-11), its activity, the employed DT value of simulated electronics and the running time indications, namely slice time and total running time.