& 32.5 $\pm$ 0.6 MeV & 1111 $\pm$ 10 & 1105 $\pm$ 110\
LS & 2000 MeV & 20.9 $\pm$ 0.4 MeV & 872 $\pm$ 15 & 933 $\pm$ 93\

\[tab:MeansDetB\]

For Tub 2, the simulated results are generally in agreement with the measurements. The optimal values of light yield and ionisation quenching parameter are given in table \[tab:OptimalVals\]. We have used Birks’ semi-empirical ionisation quenching model [@Birks1964], and the quenching parameter refers to the material parameter of that model. The light yield of the LS sample is consistent with the typically measured value of the light yield of a liquid scintillator of $\approx 10^{4}$ photons/MeV. The quenching parameter for the LS sample falls in the lower range of the typically measured values of 0.07-0.2 mm/MeV [@Peron1996; @Torrisi2000; @Broda2002; @vonKrosigk2013]. The light yield values for the WbLS samples do not linearly scale with the fraction of scintillator, likely due to differences in fluor concentration and solvent type. Both WbLS samples are more susceptible to ionisation quenching than the LS sample. Indeed, the quenching parameter for both WbLS-1 and WbLS-2 is larger than any previously reported value that could be found by the authors for a liquid scintillator. The cause of 