Recommended nuclear data for medical radioisotope production: diagnostic positron emitters
 83 Downloads
Abstract
An IAEA coordinated research project that began in 2012 and ended in 2016 was primarily dedicated to the compilation, evaluation and recommendation of crosssection data for the production of medical radionuclides. One significant part of this work focused on diagnostic positron emitters. These particular studies consist of 69 reactions for direct and indirect or generator production of ^{44}Sc(^{44}Ti), ^{52m}Mn(^{52}Fe), ^{52g}Mn, ^{55}Co, ^{61}Cu, ^{62}Cu(^{62}Zn), ^{66}Ga, ^{68}Ga(^{68}Ge), ^{72}As(^{72}Se), ^{73}Se, ^{76}Br, ^{82}Rb(^{82}Sr), ^{82m}Rb, ^{86}Y, ^{89}Zr, ^{90}Nb, ^{94m}Tc, ^{110m}In(^{110}Sn), ^{118}Sb(^{118}Te), ^{120}I, ^{122}I(^{122}Xe), ^{128}Cs(^{128}Ba), and ^{140}Pr(^{140}Nd) medical radionuclides. The resulting reference crosssection data were obtained from Padé fits to selected and corrected experimental data, and integral thick target yields were subsequently deduced. Uncertainties in the fitted results were estimated via a Padé leastsquares method with the addition of a 4% assessed systematic uncertainty. Experimental data were also compared with theoretical predictions available from the TENDL2015 and TENDL2017 libraries. All of the numerical reference crosssection data with their corresponding uncertainties and deduced integral thick target yields are available online at the IAEANDS medical portal wwwnds.iaea.org/medicalportal and also at the IAEANDS web page wwwnds.iaea.org/medical/positron_emitters.html.
Keywords
IAEA coordinated research project Diagnostic medical isotopes Positron emitters Crosssection evaluation Uncertainty estimation Padé fit Bayesian inference Recommended σ and yield dataIntroduction
PET radionuclide  Halflife  Decay (%)  Endpoint energy (keV)  Reaction product  Halflife  Decay (%)  Production reaction 

^{11}C  1221.8 s  99.7669 β^{+}  960.4  ^{11}C  1221.8 s  99.7669 β^{+}  ^{14}N(p,α)^{11}C 
^{13}N  9.965 min  99.8036 β^{+}  1198.5  ^{13}N  9.965 min  99.8036 β^{+}  ^{16}O(p,α)^{13}N 
^{15}O  122.24 s  99.9003 β^{+}  1732.0  ^{15}O  122.24 s  99.9003 β^{+}  ^{15}N(p,n)^{15}O 
^{14}N(d,n)^{15}O  
^{18}F  109.77 min  96.73 β^{+}  633.5  ^{18}F  109.77 min  96.73 β^{+}  ^{18}O(p,n)^{18}F 
^{nat}Ne(d,x)^{18}F  
^{68}Ga  67.71 min  88.91 β^{+}  1899.1  ^{68}Ge  270.95 d  100 EC  ^{69}Ga(p,2n)^{68}Ge 
^{nat}Ga(p,xn)^{68}Ge  
^{82}Rb  1.2575 min  95.43 β^{+}  3378  ^{82}Sr  25.35 d  100 EC  ^{85}Rb(p,4n)^{82}Sr 
^{nat}Rb(p,xn)^{82}Sr 
Over the previous two decades new experimental data have been measured for the earlier evaluated reactions, and numerous new and potentially suitable candidate PETisotopes have appeared in the literature along with preclinical studies. Therefore, a new CRP was initiated at the end of 2012 in order to redefine the production routes and upgrade the production data for the previously studied radionuclides, and to complement the database with the equivalent results for emerging prospective radionuclides. An additional goal of the working programme was to provide uncertainties for the recommended cross sections of all the reactions studied [3]. The results of this evaluation work are summarised for production routes applicable to diagnostic positron emitters, including generator systems for shortlived radionuclides.
Evaluation method

thorough compilation of experimental data (Section "Thorough compilation of experimental data");

undertake new measurements if required (Section "New CRP measurements");

correct and normalise earlier experimental data (decay data, enriched target abundances, monitor data, recognised systematic errors) (Sections "Status of earlier experimental data" and "Correction of earlier experimental data");

compare with theoretical predictions (Section "Comparisons with theoretical predictions");

critical comparison of all experimental datasets, and rejection of unreliable and erroneous sets (Section "Critical comparisons and selection of the most reliable experimental data");

leastsquare fit of selected experimental datasets to derive mean values and corresponding uncertainties of the resulting recommended reference data (Section "Data fitting and resulting uncertainties Padé fit of selected experimental data");

calculate integral yield as a function of the incident particle energy (Section "Integral yields for thick targets as a function of particle energy").
Thorough compilation of experimental data
Detailed searches for published experimental cross sections were made, including the following sources: primary publications in journals, EXFOR database of IAEANDS [7], IAEA INIS database [8], evaluated libraries (ENDF) [9], bibliographies of Brookhaven National Laboratory (Burrows and Dempsey [10], Holden et al. [11], Karlstrom and Christman [12]), reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (Dmitriev [13], GandariasCruz and Okamoto [14]), Landolt Börnstein Series [15], Landolt Börnstein New Series [16], Tobailem et al. [17], Albert et al. [18], Münzel et al. [19], PhD theses, other relevant evaluations, private communications, etc. All experimental references are cited in each of the subsections that describe specific reaction paths.
The cutoff for inclusion of new data was set at June 2016, and therefore some results published in the final year of this compilation exercise were not added into the already completed fits but are still shown among the datasets retrieved. Duplications of original data published in the numerous review papers on production and/or use of medical radionuclides are explicitly mentioned in this study.
New CRP measurements
Additional experiments were performed by various CRP participants as crucial support in defining the excitation functions of the ^{45}Sc(d,3n)^{44}Ti, ^{nat}Ni(p,x)^{52}Fe, ^{55}Mn(p,4n)^{52}Fe, ^{50}Cr(α,2n)^{52}Fe, ^{58}Ni(p,α)^{55}Co, ^{61}Ni(p,n)^{61}Cu, ^{60}Ni(d,n)^{61}Cu, ^{nat}Ga(p,x)^{68}Ge, ^{nat}Ge(p,xn)^{72}As, ^{nat}Ge(d,xn)^{72}As, ^{89}Y(d,2n)^{89}Zr, ^{93}Nb(p,x)^{90}Nb, ^{92}Mo(α,x)^{94m}Tc, ^{110}Cd(p,n)^{110m}In, ^{107}Ag(α,n)^{110m}In, ^{nat}Sb(p,xn)^{118}Te and ^{141}Pr(d,3n)^{140}Nd reactions. Details of these studies have been reported individually and separately in other dedicated publications (see references for specific reactions given below).
Status of earlier experimental data

Early investigations from 1945 to 1970 were mostly dedicated to the study of nuclear reaction mechanisms, and were performed on accelerators possessing somewhat limited technology of that time. The information on decay data and estimated uncertainties adopted for these experiments are poor in most cases.

Production of medical radionuclides used in clinical practice would normally involve monoisotopic or at least enriched targets. However, production cross sections are sometimes determined by evaluators from data obtained with natural targets over limited energy ranges (up to the threshold of the next contributing reaction) in order to derive suitable data for subsequent evaluation. These data are in many cases more reliable due to the higher quality of the targets employed (with respect to thickness and uniformity).

Nowadays, excitation functions are commonly measured over a broader energy range by means of the stackedfoil technique. This method possesses significant advantages in irradiation time and the determination of good relative values because of the fixed number of bombarding particles in each sample. However, long stacks suffer from an accumulation of effects caused by uncertainties in foil thicknesses that result in a possible increasing energy shift throughout the stack. The precise energy in each foil can be controlled by simultaneous measurements of the excitation function of reference monitor reactions over the whole energy range, but this is very rarely undertaken.

Another possibility is to irradiate a large number of targets simultaneously in conjunction with rotating wheels in which different energy absorbers with wellmeasured thicknesses are inserted before each target. The number of bombarding particles incident on each target is the same and well controlled, although one disadvantage is the much longer irradiation time needed when compared with stackedfoil irradiations.

Overwhelming parts of the datasets exhibit consistent and realistic behaviour, but in some cases points in a given set may disagree significantly from the observed trend and with other data without any obvious reason (although a most probable cause is an incorrect estimation of the real target thickness). These clearly discrepant data points were not considered as valid data during the fitting process.
Knowledge of the energy and energy distribution of the incident particle beam is important in reducing the uncertainty of the energy values of the data points. This information is preferably obtained by prior measurement, However, these incident beam parameters are rarely known for production machines in which the use of highintensity beams causes changes in target quality (i.e., surface density and uniformity of target atoms). Gas targets are especially sensitive to density reduction caused by the heat generated from highcurrent beams.
Essentially two methods were used in these experiments to determine the number of incident particles: direct collection of the total charge in a Faraday cup, or indirectly by means of the reference data from a series of monitor reactions. Some experiments involve only the activity of a single monitor foil inserted in front of the target stack compared with the activity of the same foil target measured in a Faraday cup at the same energy. An additional factor of uncertainty is the constancy over time of the number of incident particles, especially when the halflife of the radionuclide investigated is comparable to or shorter than the irradiation time. Not all laboratories have the instrumentation needed to monitor and quantify the beam intensity on the target during the irradiation.
Other factors are the method of detection of the different types of radiation emitted in order to quantify the product nuclei: Xrays, gamma rays, alpha and beta particles, and neutron emissions involve the use of detectors that possess very different energy resolution and efficiency. Nevertheless, recent developments in detector technology have resulted in greater reliability and commensurate reductions in the uncertainties. Compilations and evaluations of the measured results and assessment of the quality of the reported work from different laboratories require all these factors be taken into account, which requires detailed investigations of all of the original publications.
Correction of earlier experimental data
Where possible, published cross sections that rely on outdated decay data were corrected by taking new decay data into account by means of NuDat [4] (with the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF) [5] as the data source). This form of correction was also carried out with respect to the decay data associated with the adopted monitor reactions. As any correction with respect to updated half lives has a nonlinear impact on the wellknown activation equation used to determine the cross section (primarily factors related to time), caution has to be taken when applying such adjustments. They are only possible if timing information is available in the original publication. The correction for other linear factors can be more easily performed, but also requires knowledge of the decay data used by the original authors.
Excitation functions measured over a broad energy range that show often relatively small uncertainties are sometimes significantly different from more reliable data determined over a shorter energy range. These higher energy data were normalised in such cases to the well measured data to produce reference data in a broad energy range. The same method was also adopted in the case of systematic energy shifts observed in the stackedfoil technique, which can be linearly corrected with respect to data measured on accelerators with highenergy definition.
Fitting procedures require reliable uncertainties in the experimental data selected for such statistical analyses. Unfortunately, the uncertainties in the crosssection values and the beam energy are not always appropriately provided as a significant part of the published experimental data. Therefore, missing crosssection uncertainties were estimated on the basis of the measurement methodology and the experience of the compilers/evaluators.
The experimental data for a given reaction measured with similar methods and comparable technology in different laboratories often have significantly different quoted uncertainties. Some studies report uncertainties that are unrealistically low because all contributing statistical or systematic effects have not been taken into account, or are incorrectly estimated. Therefore, such values were corrected to more realistic average uncertainties to avoid incorrect weighting in the fitting procedure.
Comparisons with theoretical predictions
Experimental data were compared with theoretical predictions of activation by chargedparticle reactions, as assembled and made available in the online TENDL2015 and TENDL2017 libraries [20]. Both of these libraries are based on the reaction modelling adopted in the TALYS code [21]. The TENDL libraries are derived from both default and adjusted TALYS calculations, and occasionally from other sources.
The aim of the comparisons was to obtain a general impression of the shape of each excitation function over a broad energy range, including the magnitude of the maximum crosssection value and the effective threshold of reaction in cases where there were contradicting data. These predictions also permitted extrapolation of the excitation function in cases where experimental data were only available over a short and limited energy range as input for the Bayesian leastsquare fit (e.g., for the Padé fit). All TENDL predictions are shown along with the experimental data in the various figures of the excitation functions. Recently published results of evaluations for different activation products obtained from fitting by adjustment of theoretical codes to a compilation of existing experimental results (including some from this coordinated research project) have not been considered here, as the Bayesian nonmodel evaluation is the preferred evaluation method.
Critical comparisons and selection of the most reliable experimental data
Corrected and analysed experimental data were visually compared in figures that also included the theoretical predictions.
Measurement of radioactivity
The main sources of error when determining absolute activity are faulty estimates of the detector efficiency (especially in the lowenergy region), selfabsorption of lowenergy gamma rays, geometry deviations between point source calibrations and the activated spot size on targets, deadtime and pileup corrections, and the adoption of incorrect decay data.
Determination of the energy scale
Errors in the energy scale are introduced by improper estimation of the energy of the primary beam, uncertainties in the effective thickness of the individual targets, the cumulative effect of the stackedfoil technique, and the illdefined impact of absorbers introduced to vary the energy of the incoming beam. Accelerators used for data measurements in nuclear physics usually have the necessary facilities to measure the energy of the beams precisely.
Estimation of uncertainties of the cross sections and energy scale
Despite the existence of the JCGM guide for the expression of uncertainty in measurements that experimentalists are strongly advised to follow [22], we have found that no such recommended systematic procedures have been undertaken to estimate properly the uncertainty of the measured cross sections and their energy scale. Various factors contribute to the assessment of the uncertainty associated with crosssection measurements. Unfortunately, authors in many original publications present only the total uncertainty in their tables of cross sections, without discussing or defining the estimated uncertainties of the contributing processes (i.e., no sufficiently detailed uncertainty budget is given).

data from different authors often show striking systematic disagreements over the whole energy range;

data below the reaction threshold were frequently reported;

sometimes the data were extensively scattered, without any explanation;

specific laboratories carried out systematic investigations, and as a consequence generated good results for many reactions.
Due to a general lack of information reported in the original publications and earlier compilations, the quality of the data could not be assessed in most cases, nor reasons identified for disagreements with other publications apart from a few exceptions. The most likely sources of disagreement or reasons for discrepancies among the experimental data were as follows:
Beam current. While relying on monitor reactions, the main problem originates from the use of outdated monitor cross sections. Another source of error was improper use of monitors, especially an incorrect estimation of the energy of the bombarding particle in a region where the excitation function curve has a steep slope (which will lead to an under or overestimation of the beam flux).
Determination of the number of target nuclei. Although difficult to determine the number of target nuclei with high precision, an uncertainty below five percent can be easily achieved. The main challenges in the case of thin solid targets are uncertainties associated with the chemical state caused by surface oxidation, nonuniformity in the thickness of the foil, and improper estimation of the shape or dimensions influencing the thickness derived from weighing. Furthermore, wellknown density reductions along the beam due to the heat effect play a very important role in the case of gas targets.
On the basis of emerging inconsistencies and trends, contradictory and scattered data were rejected from the analyses. Such an extensive selection process takes into account many factors, of which a few cannot be formulated in a mathematical manner, but rather are based on invaluable experienced, yet subjective, judgements by the evaluators.
Data fitting and resulting uncertainties Padé fit of selected experimental data
Previous evaluations of the experimental crosssection data for diagnostic radionuclides were usually fitted by the spline method. Such a procedure is based on a piecemeal approximation of the data between specified points (knots of the spline) based on individual interpolating polynomials. These polynomials match in such a way that the zeroeth, first and second derivatives are continuous at the knots, and are usually selected by the second (quadratic interpolation) or third order (cubic interpolation). A continuous and smooth fit is obtained with minimum twisting (oscillating behaviour) of the fitting curve, which arises from the conditions for continuity. A particular feature of the spline method is that the fit in a selected interval is independent from the data in other intervals.

knots have to be selected by a user, which makes the fit time consuming with partially arbitrary results;

cubic splines are not always adequate for complexshaped curves.
Effective codes for practical applications of the Padé approximation were developed by the IPPE, Obninsk group [27]. The simplest version of these codes permits analyses of up to 500 experimental points, with the number of parameters L ≤ 40 and the ratio limit of analysed functions up to f^{max}/f^{min}≤ 10^{6}. A more detailed description of the method can be found in Ref. [27], and some important questions of application are presented in Refs. [28, 29].
Along with a consistent consideration of the statistical uncertainties of experimental data, the Padé method allows the determination of some systematic uncertainties that are usually underestimated by their authors, and also establishes some implicit correlations of the data. The averaged deviation of the full experimental dataset from the approximating function is regarded as the systematic uncertainty, while the variances of deviations around the averaged values are regarded as the statistical uncertainties. An optimal description of all data is achieved by the traditional iteration procedure of minimizing the mean squares deviations with the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Only total uncertainties are determined in the majority of the experimental studies, and reasonable reconstructions of the corresponding systematic uncertainties are judged to be impossible to achieve in many of these cases. The method described above provides estimates of the systematic uncertainties on the basis of general statistical criteria which are valid for a reasonable number of studies. However, for a small number of the experimental measurements, underestimation of the systematic uncertainties is highly probable. Such underestimations also occur in those cases whereby the same, very similar, or other components of the same experimental equipment are used in a range of different studies, since any related correlations have been neglected.
After analysing the complete set of available data, we have come to the conclusion that realistic total uncertainties cannot be defined as less than 4% for each of the reactions considered. Therefore, an additional systematic uncertainty of 4% has been introduced as part of each systematic uncertainty derived from statistical analyses of all the recommended cross sections.
Integral yields for thick targets as a function of particle energy
Integral thick target yields as a function of energy were calculated from the recommended cross section data. We have quantified the production rates for radionuclides whose halflives are short relative to the length of irradiation. This rate is also known as the “physical yield”, or “instantaneous production rate”, since the effect of decay of the radionuclide is small compared with the activity being created. Two other yields are also defined on the IAEA medical portal [2], namely the activity of a fixed 1 h and 1 µA irradiation, and the saturation activity at EOB for a 1 µA irradiation.
The activity of a fixed 1 h/1 μA irradiation is meaningful and can be used in practice for longerlived radionuclides where the activity is increasing linearly with irradiation time. Saturation activity is used in the case of short halflife radionuclides, when a constant activity is obtained for even relatively short irradiations. The definition of these parameters can be found in Bonardi [31], and Otuka and Takács [32]. Thick target yields for the different production routes leading to a given radionuclide are summarised within a figure at the end of every subsection.
Medically relevant radionuclides can be obtained in many cases from the decay of a parent with a different halflife (indirect production, or generator couple). Two separate figures are shown in such cases, corresponding to the yields at EOB for the shorterlived daughter and the longerlived parent (often orders of magnitude lower). Depending on the relative halflives, either timedependent partial equilibrium (indirect production in which mother and daughter have comparable halflives), or total equilibrium (longlived parent/shortlived daughter generators) is obtained.
Results for chargedparticle reactions
Evaluated nuclear reactions and decay data adopted for production of diagnostic PET radionuclides (2012–2016) [2]. Reaction thresholds for natural targets estimated approximately from the plots, and are given in bold
PET radionuclide  Target  Reaction  Reaction threshold (MeV)  Reaction product  Halflife^{a}  Decay (%)^{a} E_{γ} (keV), P_{γ} (%)  Order of Padé polynomial L  Comment 

^{44}Sc  ^{44}Ca  ^{44}Ca(p,n)^{44}Sc  4.537  ^{44}Sc  3.97 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 94.27)  19  Direct 
^{44}Ca  ^{44}Ca(d,2n)^{44}Sc  6.965  γ: 1157.020, 99.9  9  Direct  
^{43}Ca  ^{43}Ca(d,n)^{44}Sc  0  5  Direct  
^{45}Sc  ^{45}Sc(p,2n)^{44}Ti  12.65  ^{44}Ti  59.1 y  EC 100  7  Generator  
^{45}Sc  ^{45}Sc(d,3n)^{44}Ti  15.25  From decay of^{44}Sc  6  Generator  
^{52m}Mn  ^{nat}Ni  ^{nat}Ni(p,x)^{52}Fe  40  ^{52}Fe  8.275 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 55.49)  11  Generator 
^{55}Mn  ^{55}Mn(p,4n)^{52}Fe  35.00  From decay of ^{52m}Mn  17  Generator  
^{50}Cr  ^{50}Cr(α,2n)^{52}Fe  16.90  9  Generator  
^{52}Cr  ^{52}Cr(p,n)^{52m}Mn  5.60  ^{52m}Mn  21.1 min  EC + β^{+} 98.22 (β^{+} 96.6)  14  Direct  
^{52}Cr  ^{52}Cr(d,2n)^{52m}Mn  8.02  IT 1.78 γ: 1434.092, 98.2  8  Direct  
^{52}Mn  ^{52}Cr  ^{52}Cr(p,n)^{52g}Mn(m+)  5.60  ^{52g}Mn  5.591 d  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 29.4)  9  Direct 
^{52}Cr  ^{52}Cr(d,2n)^{52g}Mn(m+)  8.02  γ: 744.233, 90.0; 935.544, 94.5  8  Direct  
^{55}Co  ^{58}Ni  ^{58}Ni(p,α)^{55}Co  1.358  ^{55}Co  17.53 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 76)  10  Direct 
^{54}Fe  ^{54}Fe(d,n)^{55}Co  0  γ: 931.1, 75;  13  Direct  
^{56}Fe  ^{56}Fe(p,2n)^{55}Co  15.71  1316.6, 7.1  8  Direct  
^{61}Cu  ^{61}Ni  ^{61}Ni(p,n)^{61}Cu  3.07  ^{61}Cu  3.339 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 61)  12  Direct 
^{60}Ni  ^{60}Ni(d,n)^{61}Cu  0  γ: 282.956, 12.2;  16  Direct  
^{64}Zn  ^{64}Zn(p,α)^{61}Cu  0  656.008, 10.8; 1185.234, 3.7  12  Direct  
^{62}Cu  ^{nat}Cu  ^{63}Cu(p,2n)^{62}Zn^{b}  13.48  ^{62}Zn  9.193 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 8.2)  16  Generator 
^{nat}Cu  ^{63}Cu(d,3n)^{62}Zn^{b}  15.986  γ: 548.35, 15.3;  12  Generator  
^{nat}Ni  ^{nat}Ni(α,xn)^{62}Zn  18.5  596.56, 26  10  Generator  
^{62}Ni  ^{62}Ni(p,n)^{62}Cu  4.818  ^{62}Cu  9.67 min  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 97.83)  12  Direct  
^{62}Ni  ^{62}Ni(d,2n)^{62}Cu  7.192  γ: 875.66, 0.147; 1172.97, 0.342  5  Direct  
^{66}Ga  ^{66}Zn  ^{66}Zn(p,n)^{66}Ga  6.049  ^{66}Ga  9.49 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 57)  13  Direct 
^{63}Cu  ^{63}Cu(α,n)^{66}Ga  7.980  γ: 833.5324, 5.9; 1039.220, 37.0  13  Direct  
^{68}Ga  ^{68}Zn  ^{68}Zn(p,n)^{68}Ga  3.758  ^{68}Ga  67.71 min  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 88.91)  20  Direct 
^{65}Cu  ^{65}Cu(α,n)^{68}Ga  6.183  γ: 1077.34, 3.22  10  Direct  
^{nat}Ga  ^{nat}Ga(p,xn)^{68}Ge  10.5  ^{68}Ge  270.95 d  EC 100  11  Generator  
^{69}Ga  ^{69}Ga(p,2n)^{68}Ge  11.366  From decay of ^{68}Ga  8  Generator  
^{72}As  ^{75}As  ^{75}As(p,4n)^{72}Se  30.57  ^{72}Se  8.40 d  EC 100  8  Generator 
^{nat}Br  ^{nat}Br(p,x)^{72}Se  50  From decay of ^{72}As  10  Generator  
^{nat}Ge  ^{nat}Ge(p,xn)^{72}As  5  ^{72}As  26.0 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 87.8)  18  Direct  
^{nat}Ge  ^{nat}Ge(d,xn)^{72}As  8  γ: 629.92, 8.07; 833.99, 81  10  Direct  
^{73}Se  ^{75}As  ^{75}As(p,3n)^{73}Se  22.024  ^{73}Se  7.15 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 65.4)  9  Direct 
^{72}Ge  ^{72}Ge(α,3n)^{73}Se  27.60  γ: 67.07, 70; 361.2, 97.0  8  Direct  
^{76}Br  ^{76}Se  ^{76}Se(p,n)^{76}Br  5.821  ^{76}Br  16.2 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 55)  8  Direct 
^{77}Se  ^{77}Se(p,2n)^{76}Br  13.336  γ: 559.09, 74;  9  Direct  
^{75}As  ^{75}As(α,3n)^{76}Br  25.84  657.02, 15.9; 1853.67, 14.7  10  Direct  
^{82}Rb  ^{nat}Rb  ^{nat}Rb(p,xn)^{82}Sr  30  ^{82}Sr  25.35 d  EC 100  13  Generator 
^{85}Rb  ^{85}Rb(p,4n)^{82}Sr  31.52  From decay of ^{82}Rb: T_{1/2} = 1.2575 min EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 95.43) γ: 776.52, 15.08  9  Generator  
^{82m}Rb  ^{82}Kr  ^{82}Kr(p,n)^{82m}Rb  5.250  ^{82m}Rb  6.472 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 21.2)  9  Direct 
^{82}Kr  ^{82}Kr(d,2n)^{82m}Rb  7.593  γ: 554.35, 62.4; 619.11, 37.98; 698.37, 26.3; 776.52, 84.39; 827.83, 21.0; 1044.08, 32.07; 1317.43, 23.7; 1474.88, 15.5  5  Direct  
^{86}Y  ^{86}Sr  ^{86}Sr(p,n)^{86}Y  6.093  ^{86}Y  14.74 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 31.9)  9  Direct 
^{88}Sr  ^{88}Sr(p,3n)^{86}Y  25.86  γ: 627.72, 32.6;  8  Direct  
^{85}Rb  ^{85}Rb(α,3n)^{86}Y  25.84  1076.63, 82.5; 1153.05, 30.5  8  Direct  
^{89}Zr  ^{89}Y  ^{89}Y(p,n)^{89}Zr  3.656  ^{89}Zr  78.41 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 22.74)  11  Direct 
^{89}Y  ^{89}Y(d,2n)^{89}Zr  5.972  909.15, 99.04  9  Direct  
^{90}Nb  ^{93}Nb  ^{93}Nb(p,x)^{90}Nb  29.08  ^{90}Nb  14.60 h  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 51.2)  9  Direct 
^{89}Y  ^{89}Y(α,3n)^{90}Nb  28.04  γ: 132.716, 4.13; 141.178, 66.8; 1129.224, 92.7  16  Direct  
^{94m}Tc  ^{92}Mo  ^{92}Mo(α,x)^{94m}Tc  16.26  ^{94m}Tc  52.0 min  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 70.2)  12  Direct 
^{94}Mo  ^{94}Mo(p,n)^{94m}Tc  5.092  γ: 871.05, 94.2; 1522.1, 4.5; 1868.68, 5.7  9  Direct  
^{110m}In  ^{nat}In  ^{nat}In(p,xn)^{110}Sn  30  ^{110}Sn  4.154 h  EC 100  17  Generator 
^{108}Cd  ^{108}Cd(α,2n)^{110}Sn  17.76  γ: 280.459, 97.06  10  Generator  
^{110}Cd  ^{110}Cd(p,n)^{110m}In  4.703  ^{110m}In  69.1 min  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 61.3)  11  Direct  
^{110}Cd  ^{110}Cd(d,2n)^{110m}In  7.011  γ: 2129.40, 2.15;  5  Direct  
^{107}Ag  ^{107}Ag(α,n)^{110m}In  7.867  2211.33, 1.74; 2317.41, 1.285  9  Direct  
^{118}Sb  ^{115}Sn  ^{115}Sn(α,n)^{118}Te  8.262  ^{118}Te  6.00 d  EC 100  7  Generator 
^{116}Sn  ^{116}Sn(α,2n)^{118}Te  18.15  From decay of ^{118}Sb:  6  Generator  
^{nat}Sb  ^{nat}Sb(p,x)^{118}Te  30  T_{1/2} = 3.6 min  12  Generator  
^{nat}Sb  ^{nat}Sb(d,x)^{118}Te  34  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 73.5)  4  Generator  
γ: 1229.33, 2.5  
^{120}I  ^{120}Te  ^{120}Te(p,n)^{120}I  6.451  ^{120}I  81.6 min  EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 68.2)  18  Direct 
^{122}Te  ^{122}Te(p,3n)^{120}I  23.68  γ: 601.1, 5.51; 1523.0, 10.9  7  Direct  
^{122}I  ^{124}Xe  ^{124}Xe(p,x)^{122}Xe  18.60  ^{122}Xe  20.1 h  EC 100  5  Generator 
^{127}I  ^{127}I(p,6n)^{122}Xe  45.12  γ: 350.065, 7.80; and  7  Generator  
^{127}I  ^{127}I(d,7n)^{122}Xe  47.74  from decay of ^{122}I: T_{1/2} = 3.63 min EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 78) γ: 564.119, 18  12  Generator  
^{128}Cs  ^{133}Cs  ^{133}Cs(p,6n)^{128}Ba  44.16  ^{128}Ba  2.43 d  EC 100 γ: 273.44, 14.5; and from decay of ^{128}Cs: T_{1/2} = 3.66 min EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 68.8) γ: 442.901, 26.8  18  Generator 
^{140}Pr  ^{141}Pr  ^{141}Pr(p,2n)^{140}Nd  10.68  ^{140}Nd  3.37 d  EC 100  10  Generator 
^{141}Pr  ^{141}Pr(d,3n)^{140}Nd  13.02  From decay of ^{140}Pr:  9  Generator  
^{nat}Ce  ^{nat}Ce(^{3}He,xn)^{140}Nd  16  T_{1/2} = 3.39 min EC + β^{+} 100 (β^{+} 51) γ: 306.9, 0.147; 1596.1, 0.49  9  Generator 
Halflives and limited decayscheme data for the different radionuclides discussed in the following subsections can be found in Table 2. The γray energies in keV and the corresponding absolute emission probabilities (absolute intensities, P_{γ}(%)) used to identify and quantify the activity of a given radionuclide in the experimental studies (and β^{+} decay fraction instead of the intensity of the 511 keV annihilation radiation) are listed, and have also been included within each of the primary subsections of this Section.
Reactions for radionuclides present in Table 1 but not considered during the course of this CRP will be evaluated in a similar manner as part of a future series of IAEAsponsored studies and will be published elsewhere.
Production of ^{44g}Sc (T _{1/2} = 3.97 h) and longlived ^{44}Ti parent (T _{1/2} = 59.1 y)
Applications: ^{44}Sc (av. E_{β+} = 632.0 keV, 94.27% intensity) has emerged as an attractive radiometal candidate for PET imaging by means of e.g., DOTAfunctionalised biomolecules. ^{44}Sclabelled PET radiopharmaceuticals appear of interest for molecular imaging of mediumlasting physiological processes. Also forms a theranostic pair with therapeutic ^{47}Sc.
^{44}Sc (3.97 h): β^{+} (94.27%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 1157.020 (99.9).
^{44}Ti (59.1 y): detected by means of radiation emitted by daughter ^{44}Sc.
^{44}Ca(p,n)^{44}Sc, ^{44}Ca(d,2n)^{44}Sc and ^{43}Ca(d,n)^{44}Sc direct reactions and ^{45}Sc(p,2n)^{44}Ti^{44}Sc, ^{45}Sc(d,3n)^{44}Ti^{44}Sc generator production routes were evaluated.
^{44}Ca(p,n)^{44g}Sc
^{44}Ca(d,2n) ^{44g}Sc
^{43}Ca(d,n)^{44g}Sc
^{45}Sc(p,2n)^{44}Ti
^{45}Sc(d,3n)^{44}Ti
Thick target yields for production of ^{44g}Sc, and longlived ^{44}Ti parent
Production of ^{52m}Mn (T _{1/2} = 21.1 min) and longerlived ^{52}Fe parent (T _{1/2} = 8.275 h)
Applications: ^{52m}Mn has been suggested for myocardial and cerebral perfusion imaging, more recently for studies similar to Mnenhanced neuronal MRI, and for diagnosis in other organ systems—bones, spinal cord and the digestive tract.
^{52m}Mn (21.1 min): β^{+} (96.6%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 1434.092 (98.2).
^{52}Fe (8.275 h): detected by means of radiation emitted from daughter ^{52m}Mn.
Evaluations have been made of the ^{52}Cr(p,n)^{52m}Mn and ^{52}Cr(d,2n)^{52m}Mn direct production routes and ^{nat}Ni(p,x)^{52}Fe, ^{55}Mn(p,4n)^{52}Fe and ^{50}Cr(α,2n)^{52}Fe reactions for indirect production through decay of the longerlived parent.
^{nat}Ni(p,x)^{52}Fe
^{55}Mn(p,4n)^{52}Fe
^{50}Cr(α,2n)^{52}Fe
^{52}Cr(p,n)^{52m}Mn
^{52}Cr(d,2n)^{52m}Mn
Thick target yields for production of ^{52m}Mn, and longlived ^{52}Fe parent
Production of ^{52g}Mn (T _{½} = 5.591 d)
Applications: The longerlived ^{52}Mn ground state has potential as a PET tracer for preclinical in vivo neuroimaging and other applications such as cell tracking, immunoPET and functional βcell mass quantification. Unfortunately, a halflife of 5.591 d coupled with an extremely high radiation burden that arises from the resulting gammaray emissions has limited ^{52g}Mn clinical applications.
^{52g}Mn (5.591 d): β^{+} (29.4%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 744.233 (90.0), 935.544 (94.5), 1434.092 (100).
Evaluations have been made of the direct ^{52}Cr(p,n)^{52g}Mn(m+) and ^{52}Cr(d,2n)^{52g}Mn(m+) production routes, including the partial decay of the simultaneously produced shortlived ^{52m}Mn metastable state (IT = 1.78%, noted as (m+)) which has already been assessed and discussed in section “Production of ^{52m}Mn (T_{1/2} = 21.1 min) and longerlived ^{52}Fe parent (T_{1/2} = 8.275 h)”.
^{52}Cr(p,n)^{52g}Mn (m+)
^{52}Cr(d,2n)^{52g}Mn(m+)
Thick target yields for production of ^{52g}Mn(m+)
Production of ^{55}Co (T _{1/2} = 17.53 h)
Applications: ^{55}Co is a typical example of a positron emitter of sufficient halflife to follow kinetic processes that function over a longer timescale. This radionuclide has been used to target the epidermal growth factor (EGFR) by means of labelled DOTAconjugated Affibody. Exhibits lower liver and heart uptake for metalchelate peptide complexes, with improved performance when compared with ^{68}Ga. Also used as a Ca^{2+} analogue in imaging studies of Alzheimer disease, and shows promise in achieving improved imaging of cancer diseases.
^{55}Co (17.53 h): β^{+} (76%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 931.1 (75), 1316.6 (7.1).
^{58}Ni(p,α)^{55}Co, ^{54}Fe(d,n)^{55}Co and ^{56}Fe(p,2n)^{55}Co production routes have been evaluated.
^{58}Ni(p,α)^{55}Co
^{54}Fe(d,n)^{55}Co
^{56}Fe(p,2n)^{55}Co
Thick target yields for production of ^{55}Co
Production of ^{61}Cu (T _{½} = 3.339 h)
Applications: Copper radionuclides form stable complexes with several chelators that can be conjugated to a wide variety of organic molecules for both imaging (^{61}Cu, ^{62}Cu, ^{64}Cu) and radiotherapy (^{64}Cu, ^{67}Ci). Relatively longerlived ^{61}Cu (T_{½} = 3.339 h, 61% β^{+}, 39% EC) possesses very good imaging properties that can be used for blood flow studies in a similar manner to ^{51}Cr. Also has been applied to blood pool imaging (DOTAhuman serum albumin) and the study of hypoxia in tumours (coupled to ATSM)—useful for following kinetics processes of the order of a few hours.
^{61}Cu (3.339 h): β^{+} (61%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 282.956 (12.2), 656.008 (10.8), 1185.234 (3.7).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{61}Ni(p,n)^{61}Cu, ^{60}Ni(d,n)^{61}Cu and ^{64}Zn(p,α)^{61}Cu direct production routes.
^{61}Ni(p,n)^{61}Cu
^{60}Ni(d,n)^{61}Cu
^{64}Zn(p,α)^{61}Cu
Thick target yields for production of ^{61}Cu
Production of ^{62}Cu (T _{1/2} = 9.67 min) and longerlived ^{62}Zn parent (T _{1/2} = 9.193 h)
Applications: As stated earlier, copper isotopes form stable complexes with several chelators that can be conjugated to a wide variety of organic molecules for both imaging (^{61}Cu, ^{62}Cu, ^{64}Cu) and therapy (^{64}Cu, ^{67}Ci). Shortlived ^{62}Cu has been proposed for the labelling of PTSM (pyruvaldehyde bis) to undertake myocardial and brain blood flow studies.
^{62}Cu (9.67 min): β^{+} (97.83%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 875.66 (0.147), 1172.97 (0.342).
^{62}Zn (9.193 h): β^{+} (8.2%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 548.35 (15.3), 596.56 (26).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{63}Cu(p,2n)^{62}Zn, ^{63}Cu(d,3n)^{62}Zn and ^{nat}Ni(α,xn)^{62}Zn indirect, and ^{62}Ni(p,n)^{62}Cu and ^{62}Ni(d,2n)^{62}Cu direct production routes.
^{63}Cu(p,2n)^{62}Zn
^{63}Cu(d,3n)^{62}Zn
^{nat}Ni(α,xn)^{62}Zn
^{62}Ni(p,n)^{62}Cu
^{62}Ni(d,2n)^{62}Cu
Thick target yields for production of ^{62}Cu, and ^{62}Zn parent
Production of ^{66}Ga (T _{½} = 9.49 h)
Applications: Both ^{66}Ga and ^{68}Ga are positronemitting radionuclides that can be used in PET imaging. Longerlived ^{66}Ga has been coupled to monoclonal antibodies (e.g., for tumour angiogenesis studies) and to nanoparticles. This radionuclide has also been proposed in hadron therapy as an in situ marker for the incorporation of Zn in tumours. Obvious disadvantages are the rather high radiation burden and inferior imaging properties caused by the many gamma rays that accompany decay.
^{66}Ga (9.49 h): β^{+} (57%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 833.5324 (5.9), 1039.220 (37.0).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{66}Zn(p,n)^{66}Ga and ^{63}Cu(α,n)^{66}Ga direct production routes.
^{66}Zn(p,n)^{66}Ga
^{63}Cu(α,n)^{66}Ga
Thick target yields for production of ^{66}Ga
Production of ^{68}Ga (T _{1/2} = 67.71 min) and longlived ^{68}Ge parent (T _{1/2} = 270.95 d)
Applications: Rather shortlived ^{68}Ga became the first widespread generatorproduced positron emitter, thereby competing somewhat with ^{18}F for preferred adoption in PET imaging. First introduced for the imaging of neuroendocrine tumours (^{68}Galabelled DOTATOC), more recent significant success has been achieved in the form of very efficient imaging agents for prostate cancer diagnosis and staging (^{68}GaDOTAPSMA and derivatives).
^{68}Ga (67.71 min): β^{+} (88.91%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 1077.34 (3.22).
^{68}Ge (270.95 d): detected by means of radiation from daughter ^{68}Ga.
Evaluations have been undertaken of the ^{68}Zn(p,n)^{68}Ga and ^{65}Cu(α,n)^{68}Ga direct routes and ^{nat}Ga(p,x)^{68}Ge and ^{69}Ga(p,2n)^{68}Ge generator production.
^{68}Zn(p,n)^{68}Ga
^{65}Cu(α,n)^{68}Ga
^{nat}Ga(p,xn)^{68}Ge
^{69}Ga(p,2n)^{68}Ge
Thick target yields for ^{68}Ga, and longlived ^{68}Ge parent for generator
Production of ^{72}As (T _{1/2} = 26.0 h) and longerlived ^{72}Se parent (T _{1/2} = 8.40 d)
Applications: ^{72}As is a longlived positronemitting radionuclide suitable for imaging the biodistribution of monoclonal antibodies with long biological halflives that are promising in PET oncological research. Chemical properties offer the possibility of covalent bonding to thiol groups.
^{72}As (26.0 h): β^{+} (87.8%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 629.92 (8.07), 833.99 (81).
^{72}Se (8.40 d): detected by means of radiation emitted by daughter ^{72}As.
Evaluations have been undertaken of the ^{75}As(p,4n)^{72}Se and ^{nat}Br(p,x)^{72}Se routes for parent production, and the ^{nat}Ge(p,xn)^{72}As and ^{nat}Ge(d,xn)^{72}As direct production routes.
^{75}As(p,4n)^{72}Se
^{nat}Br(p,x)^{72}Se
^{nat}Ge(p,xn)^{72}As
^{nat}Ge(d,xn)^{72}As
Thick target yields for production of ^{72}As, and ^{72}Se parent
Production of ^{73}Se (T _{1/2} = 7.15 h)
Applications: ^{73}Se (T_{½} = 7.15 h; EC = 34.6%, β^{+} = 65.4%; E_{β+}(max) = 1.65 MeV) is an interesting β^{+}emitting analogue of sulphur suitable for the imaging of enzymatic systems or sulphurcontaining amino acids.
^{73}Se(7.15 h): β^{+} (65.4%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 67.07 (70), 361.2 (97.0).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{75}As(p,3n)^{73}Se and ^{72}Ge(α,3n)^{73}Se direct production routes.
^{75}As(p,3n)^{73}Se
^{72}Ge(α,3n)^{73}Se
Thick target yields for production of ^{73}Se
Production of ^{76}Br (T _{1/2} = 16.2 h)
Applications: Longerlived positronemitting radiohalogens were some of the first radionuclides studied to follow processes with kinetics inappropriate for ^{18}F application. ^{76}Br was used in several studies to label monoclonal antibodies, although the large number of accompanying gamma rays that result in a relatively high radiation burden and poor imaging properties has seen a subsequent decline of interest in this radionuclide.
^{76}Br(16.2 h): β^{+} (55%) and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 559.09 (74), 657.02 (15.9), 1853.67 (14.7).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{76}Se(p,n)^{76}Br, ^{77}Se(p,2n)^{76}Br and ^{75}As(α,3n)^{76}Br production routes.
^{76}Se(p,n)^{76}Br
^{77}Se(p,2n)^{76}Br
^{75}As(α,3n)^{76}Br
Thick target yields for ^{76}Br
Production of ^{82}Sr parent (T _{1/2} = 25.35 d) of shortlived ^{82}Rb (T _{1/2} = 1.2575 min)
Applications: Generatorproduced ^{82}Rb is widely used in myocardial perfusion imaging, particularly in the USA. This isotope undergoes rapid uptake by myocardiocytes, and therefore is a valuable tool for identifying myocardial ischemia by means of PET. Such a short halflife allows one to perform both stress and rest perfusion studies within 30 min.
^{82}Rb (1.2575 min): β^{+} (95.43%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 776.52 (15.08).
^{82}Sr (25.35 d): detected by means of radiation emitted by daughter ^{82}Rb.
Evaluations have been undertaken of the ^{nat}Rb(p,xn)^{82}Sr and ^{85}Rb(p,4n)^{82}Sr parent production routes.
^{nat}Rb(p,xn)^{82}Sr
^{85}Rb(p,4n)^{82}Sr
Thick target yields for ^{82}Sr parent of shortlived ^{82}Rb
Production of ^{82m}Rb (T_{½} = 6.472 h)
Applications: Longerlived ^{82m}Rb isomeric state could possibly act as a substitute for generatorproduced ^{82}Rb in PET cardiology centres that operate a cyclotron. However, this isomer suffers from a relatively high radiation burden that arises from the longer halflife and gammaray emissions.
^{82m}Rb (6.472 h): β^{+} (21.2%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 554.35 (62.4), 619.11 (37.98), 698.37 (26.3), 776.52 (84.39), 827.83 (21.0), 1044.08 (32.07), 1317.43 (23.7), 1474.88 (15.5).
Evaluations have been undertaken of the ^{82}Kr(p,n)^{82m}Rb and ^{82}Kr(d,2n)^{82m}Rb reactions.
^{82}Kr(p,n)^{82m}Rb
^{82}Kr(d,2n)^{82m}Rb
Thick target yields for production of ^{82m}Rb
Production of ^{86}Y (T _{1/2} = 14.74 h)
Applications: Extensive studies of ^{86}Y have been performed as a positron emitter (31.9%) with 14.74 h halflife that can adopted as a theranostic pair with clinicallyestablished therapeutic betaemitting ^{90}Y. The role of ^{86}Y is to monitor the localised therapeutic dose distribution in the body for dosimetry calculations. Has also been studied for prostate cancer imaging, and used to label monoclonal antibodies in EGFR targeting. However, interest in this radionuclide has declined because of the high radiation burden and resultant poor imaging properties.
^{86}Y (14.74 h): β^{+} (31.9%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 627.72 (32.6), 1076.63 (82.5), 1153.05 (30.5).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{86}Sr(p,n)^{86}Y, ^{88}Sr(p,3n)^{86}Y and ^{85}Rb(α,3n)^{86}Y production routes.
^{86}Sr(p,n)^{86}Y
^{88}Sr(p,3n)^{86}Y
^{85}Rb(α,3n)^{86}Y
Thick target yields for production of ^{86}Y
Production of ^{89}Zr (T _{1/2} = 78.41 h)
Applications: Longlived positronemitting ^{89}Zr has been extensively studied with respect to following the in vivo behaviour of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and other biomolecules with slow biokinetics. One significant disadvantage is the limited number of suitable ^{89}Zr chelating agents and difficulties related to their development.
^{89}Zr (78.41 h): β^{+} (22.74%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 909.15 (99.04).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{89}Y(p,n)^{89}Zr and ^{89}Y(d,2n)^{89}Zr production routes.
^{89}Y(p,n)^{89}Zr
^{89}Y(d,2n)^{89}Zr
Thick target yields for production of ^{89}Zr
Production of ^{90}Nb (T _{1/2} = 14.60 h)
Applications: As a nonconventional positron emitter, ^{90}Nb with a halflife of 14.60 h can be used to visualise and quantify processes with medium and slow kinetics, such as tumour accumulation of antibodies and antibody fragments, or polymers and other nanoparticles. Exhibits promise in immunoPET, although a search for appropriate chelators is desirable. Also emits several highenergy gamma rays that increase the radiation burden.
^{90}Nb (14.60 h): β^{+} (51.2%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 132.716 (4.13), 141.178 (66.8), 1129.224 (92.7).
Evaluations have been undertaken of the ^{93}Nb(p,x)^{90}Nb and ^{89}Y(α,3n)^{90}Nb production.
^{93}Nb(p,x)^{90}Nb
^{89}Y(α,3n)^{90}Nb
Thick target yields for production of ^{90}Nb
Production of ^{94m}Tc (T _{1/2} = 52.0 min)
Applications: Gammaray emitting ^{99m}Tc is the most widespread medical radionuclide for diagnosis, whereas ^{94m}Tc with a halflife of 52.0 min. is a positron emitter with a positron branch of 70.2% and E_{β+}(max) of 2.44 MeV. Therefore, there has been interest in ^{94m}Tc as a PET analogue to ^{99m}Tc since they both undergo the same chemistry. Obvious disadvantages of ^{94m}Tc are the rather short halflife of 52.0 min., with many accompanying gamma rays and the inability to prepare the pure isomer without also generating significant amounts of ground state ^{94g}Tc.
^{94m}Tc (52.0 min): β^{+} (70.2%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 871.05 (94.2), 1522.1 (4.5), 1868.68 (5.7).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{92}Mo(α,x)^{94m}Tc and ^{94}Mo(p,n)^{94m}Tc production routes.
^{92}Mo(α,x)^{94m}Tc
^{94}Mo(p,n)^{94m}Tc
Thick target yields for production of ^{94m}Tc
Production of ^{110m}In (T _{1/2} = 69.1 min) and longerlived ^{110}Sn parent (T _{1/2} = 4.154 h)
Applications: ^{110m}In is a positronemitting analogue for established SPECT ^{111}In. Potential to provide more quantitative diagnostic information as well as in vivo quantification of the uptake kinetics of radiopharmaceuticals (e.g., applied along with ^{111}Inlabelled DTPADPhe1octeotride for neuroendocrine tumours).
^{110m}In can be produced directly and via parent ^{110}Sn.
^{110m}In (69.1 min): β^{+} (61.3%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 2129.40 (2.15), 2211.33 (1.74), 2317.41 (1.285).
^{110}Sn (4.154 h): E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 280.459 (97.06).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{nat}In(p,xn)^{110}Sn, ^{108}Cd(α,2n)^{110}Sn, ^{110}Cd(p,n)^{110m}In, ^{110}Cd(d,2n)^{110m}In and ^{107}Ag(α,n)^{110m}In production routes.
^{nat}In(p,xn)^{110}Sn
^{108}Cd(α,2n)^{110}Sn
^{110}Cd(p,n)^{110m}In
^{110}Cd(d,2n)^{110m}In
^{107}Ag(α,n)^{110m}In
Thick target yields for ^{110m}In, and ^{110}Sn parent
Production of ^{118}Te parent (T _{1/2} = 6.00 d) of shortlived ^{118}Sb (T _{1/2} = 3.6 min)
Applications: EC decay of ^{118}Te produces 3.6 min halflife ^{118}Sb daughter, which decays primarily by positron emission and can be used as a flow tracer.
^{118}Sb (3.6 min): β^{+} (73.5%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 1229.33 (2.5).
^{118}Te (6.00 d): detected by means of radiation emitted by daughter ^{118}Sb.
Evaluations have been undertaken for the ^{115}Sn(α,n)^{118}Te, ^{116}Sn(α,2n)^{118}Te, ^{nat}Sb(p,xn)^{118}Te and ^{nat}Sb(d,xn)^{118}Te production routes.
^{115}Sn(α,n)^{118}Te
^{116}Sn(α,2n)^{118}Te
^{nat}Sb(p,xn)^{118}Te
^{nat}Sb(d,xn)^{118}Te
Thick target yields for production of ^{118}Te parent of shortlived ^{118}Sb
Production of ^{120}I (T _{½} = 81.6 min)
Applications: Positronemitting ^{120}I (T_{½} = 81.6 min) is a shortlived alternative to ^{124}I and ^{123}I. This iodine radionuclide has a positron abundance more than twice that of ^{124}I and a maximum positron energy of 4.593 MeV. Can be used for radiohalogenation of molecules with rapid kinetics.
^{120}I (81.6 min): β^{+} (68.2%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 601.1 (5.51). 1523.0 (10.9).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{120}Te(p,n)^{120}I and ^{122}Te(p,3n)^{120}I reactions.
^{120}Te(p,n)^{120}I
^{122}Te(p,3n)^{120}I
Thick target yields for production of ^{120}I
Production of ^{122}Xe parent (T _{1/2} = 20.1 h) of shortlived ^{122}I (T _{1/2} = 3.63 min)
Applications: ^{122}I with a halflife of 3.63 min. has potential as a generatorproduced positron emitter for various PET studies such as brain and heart perfusion.
^{122}I (3.63 min): detected through β^{+} (78%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 564.119 (18).
^{122}Xe (20.1 h): E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 350.065 (7.80), and radiation emitted by daughter ^{122}I.
Evaluations have been undertaken of the ^{124}Xe(p,x)^{122}Xe, ^{127}I(p,6n)^{122}Xe and ^{127}I(d,7n)^{122}Xe production routes.
^{124}Xe(p,x)^{122}Xe
^{127}I(p,6n)^{122}Xe
^{127}I(d,7n)^{122}Xe
Thick target yields for production of ^{122}Xe parent of shortlived ^{122}I
Production of ^{128}Ba parent (T _{1/2} = 2.43 d) of shortlived ^{128}Cs (T _{1/2} = 3.66 min)
Applications: Shortlived generatorproduced ^{128}Cs can be used in a similar manner to ^{82}Rb for myocardial perfusion examinations.
^{128}Cs (3.66 min): β^{+} (68.8%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 442.901 (26.8).
^{128}Ba (2.43 d): E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 273.44 (14.5), and by means of radiation from daughter ^{128}Cs.
Only the ^{133}Cs(p,6n)^{128}Ba reaction has been evaluated.
^{133}Cs(p,6n)^{128}Ba
Thick target yields for ^{128}Ba parent of shortlived ^{128}Cs
Production of ^{140}Nd parent (T _{1/2} = 3.37 d) of shortlived ^{140}Pr (T _{1/2} = 3.39 min)
Applications: EC decay of ^{140}Nd (EC = 100%, T_{1/2} = 3.37 d) produces shortlived ^{140}Pr (T_{1/2} = 3.39 min, β^{+} = 51.0%, E_{β+}(max) = 2.366 MeV), which undergoes EC/β^{+} decay to stable ^{140}Ce. Parentdaughter ^{140}Nd/^{140}Pr has been proposed as a radionuclide generator, or as an in vivo generator system for PET studies.
^{140}Pr (3.39 min): β^{+} (51.0%), and E_{γ} (keV) (P_{γ}(%)): 306.9 (0.147), 1596.1 (0.49).
^{140}Nd (3.37 d): detected by means of radiation emitted by daughter ^{140}Pr.
Evaluations have been undertaken of the ^{141}Pr(p,2n)^{140}Nd, ^{141}Pr(d,3n)^{140}Nd and ^{nat}Ce(^{3}He,xn)^{140}Nd production routes.
^{141}Pr(p,2n)^{140}Nd
^{141}Pr(d,3n)^{140}Nd
^{nat}Ce(^{3}He,xn)^{140}Nd
Thick target yields for production of ^{140}Nd parent of shortlived ^{140}Pr
Evaluated excitation functions: an overall assessment
A significant amount of effort has been expended to assemble, evaluate, analyse and recommend suitable crosssection datasets to ensure that a series of radionuclides may be generated with acceptable purity in an optimum manner for PET imaging. Obviously, confidence in such recommended data is highly dependent on their quality and validity as addressed and improved by indepth evaluations. As derived, these data can also be assessed to identify those cross sections and their resulting excitation functions that can be improved further by means of additional measurements. Additionally, integral measurements (production thick target yields) are very important and need to be performed in order to assist in the benchmaring and validation of the recommended data.
Improved radionuclidic purity may be an issue that emerges from researchbased applications in nuclear medicine. Under such circumstances, excitation functions for these radionuclidic impurities are also required to aid in the optimisation of target composition and energy range of the beam within the target in order to avoid or at least minimise their production. These data requirements have not been addressed in the current studies, but remain an important part of what would normally constitute an evolutionary programme of work that may hopefully lead up to regular medical application.
Some critical comments can be justifiably applied as to the quality of any evaluated crosssection data, particularly when the quoted uncertainties of such recommended excitation functions do not reflect the complexity of various underlying and often illdefined factors. For example, difficulties arise when attempting to judge the quality of experimental data on the basis of only the original publication(s), as significant details on the measurement and associated data evaluations are required for such an exercise but are often omitted from journal papers. Reported uncertainties do not exceed seven or eight percent in many cases for very different types of reaction and measurement methodology that makes such modest percentages effectively unrealistic. Some laboratories are known to possess greater expertise than others, and/or have a better technical background in crosssection studies. Such personnel and facilities most frequently generate more reliable experimental data that implies greater weight should be applied to their datasets in the evaluation process. However, under such circumstances, less reliable data and their questionable uncertainties are considered in many evaluations with the same weighting, and so distort the final recommended values. The thoroughness of compilation, systematic application of all known corrections, and strictness in data selection also depend strongly on the subjective knowledge and analytical behaviour of individual evaluators. This results in a quality difference between the recommendations of evaluators that is not reflected in the uncertainties of their final sets of recommended nuclear data.
 1.
Energy shift of high energy reactions with the emission of multiple particles.
 2.
Underestimation of the production of some isomeric states which is reflected in the underestimation of cumulative processes.
 3.
Poor quantification of the magnitude of alphaparticle induced reactions near their maximum and at higher energies.
 4.
Underestimation of the cross section for a single ^{3}Heinduced reaction.
 5.
Underestimation of the cross section for deuteron induced reactions, especially from the threshold to the maximum of the excitation function.
 6.
Unexplained strange shapes within some (p,n) reactions (e.g., plateau near maximum).
Many of these shortcomings are related to known problems in the theoretical modelling that will be shared by results calculated using different reaction codes.
Additional improved experimental studies of particular production routes are clearly merited, as defined by the nature of some of the existing crosssection data to be found throughout Section Results for chargedparticle reactions. However, there are also other reactions that require consideration and analyses of the form undertaken above [327, 328], along with the need for better quantified studies of specific positron and Xray emission probabilities [329]. New measurements and evaluations are required of the activation cross sections for protoninduced reactions with energies up to 250 MeV: ^{11}C, ^{13}N, ^{14,15}O, ^{30}P and ^{38}K. More extensive crosssection studies would also be beneficial to achieve the optimum production of ^{34m}Cl, ^{43}Sc, ^{45}Ti, ^{48}V, ^{49}Cr, ^{51}Mn, ^{57}Ni, ^{75}Br, ^{77}Kr, ^{81}Rb, ^{83}Sr, ^{95}Ru, ^{121}I and ^{152}Tb. Improved decay data are identified with the need for accurate absolute positron and Xray emission probabilities for ^{57}Ni, ^{72}As, ^{73}Se, ^{75,76}Br, ^{77}Kr, ^{81,82m}Rb, ^{83}Sr, ^{86}Y, ^{89}Zr, ^{94m}Tc and ^{120}I. On balance, reviews of the nuclear data requirements in nuclear medicine would appear to be appropriate approximately every 10 years to ensure a continued and welldefined international focus on ensuring that the necessary technical information is immediately to hand when required.
Conclusions
Substantial extensions and significant improvements have been made to the IAEANDS recommended crosssection database for the production of PET radionuclides. Evaluations were performed on 69 reactions for direct, indirect or generator production of ^{44}Sc, ^{44}Ti, ^{52}Mn, ^{52m}Mn, ^{52}Fe, ^{55}Co, ^{61}Cu, ^{62}Cu, ^{62}Zn, ^{66}Ga, ^{68}Ga, ^{68}Ge, ^{72}As, ^{72}Se, ^{73}Se, ^{76}Br, ^{82}Rb, ^{82m}Rb, ^{82}Sr, ^{86}Y, ^{89}Zr, ^{90}Nb, ^{94m}Tc, ^{110m}In, ^{110}Sn, ^{118}Sb, ^{118}Te, ^{120}I, ^{122}I, ^{122}Xe, ^{128}Cs, ^{128}Ba, ^{140}Pr and ^{140}Nd. A Padé fitting method was applied to the evaluated datasets selected, and uncertainties for all of the recommended data were deduced. The experimental data were compared with theoretical predictions taken from both the TENDL2015 and TENDL2017 libraries, sometimes exhibiting significant disagreements in the magnitude and shape of the resulting excitation functions.
As well as a lack of published data for specific reactions, significant disagreements were also found to exist between various equivalent experimental data. All of the recommended crosssection data were used to derive integral or production thick target yields for direct practical application.
All of the numerical reference crosssection data with their corresponding uncertainties and deduced integral thick target yields are available online at the IAEANDS medical portal wwwnds.iaea.org/medportal/ [2] and also at the IAEANDS web page wwwnds.iaea.org/medical/positron_emitters.html.
These evaluated experimental data are important for existing and potential applications in nuclear medicine, and may also have useful roles in other fields of nonenergy related nuclear studies.
Notes
Acknowledgements
Our sincere thanks are extended to all colleagues who have contributed to and worked on this project over the previous 5 years. The studies undertaken and the preparation of this paper would not have been possible without the full support, hard work and efforts of a large number of individuals and institutions. The IAEA is grateful to all participant laboratories for their assistance in the work and support of the CRP meetings and activities. Work described in this paper would not have been possible without IAEA Member State contributions. Studies at ANL were supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, under contract no. DEAC06CH11357.
References
 1.Gul K, Hermanne A, Mustafa MG, Nortier FM, Obložinský P, Qaim SM, Scholten B, Shubin Yu, Takács S, Tárkányi FT, Zhuang Y Charged particle crosssection database for medical radioisotope production: diagnostic radioisotopes and monitor reactions, IAEA report IAEATECDOC1211, May 2001, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/tecdocs/iaeatecdoc1211.pdf. Monitor data are available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/medical/medicalold/monitor_reactions.html. Medical isotope production data are online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/medicalportal/
 2.IAEA medical portal—charged particle cross section database for medical radioisotope production, Updated 2003–2004, and beyond. Available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/medportal/
 3.Nichols AL, Capote R (2012) Summary report of first research coordination meeting on nuclear data for chargedparticle monitor reactions and medical isotope production, 3–7 December 2012, IAEA report INDC(NDS)0630, February 2013, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0630.pdf
 4.NuDat, US National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA. Decay data retrieval code available online at: www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/
 5.ENSDF: Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File. Available online at: www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/ Developed and maintained by the International Network of Nuclear Structure and Decay Data Evaluators (NSDD) (see wwwnds.iaea.org/nsdd/)
 6.Bĕták E, Caldeira AD, Capote R, Carlson BV, Choi HD, Guimarães FB, Ignatyuk AV, Kim SK, Király B, Kovalev SF, Menapace E, Nichols AL, Nortier M, Pompeia P, Qaim SM, Scholten B, Shubin Yu N, Sublet JCh, Tárkányi F (2011) Nuclear data for the production of therapeutic radionuclides. In: Qaim SM, Tárkányi F, Capote R (Technical editors) IAEA Technical Reports Series no. 473, IAEA scientific and technical report STI/DOC/010/473, IAEA, Vienna, Austria (2011) ISBN 9789201150103. Available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/tecdocs/technicalreportsseries473.pdf Data also available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/medportal/
 7.Otuka N, Dupont E, Semkova V, Pritychenko B, Blokhin AI, Aikawa M, Babykina S, Bossant M, Cheng G, Dunaeva S, Forrest RA, Fukahori T, Furutachi N, Ganesan S, Geg Z, Gritzay OO, Herman M, Hlaváč S, Kato K, Lalremruata B, Lee YO, Makinaga A, Matsumoto K, Mikhaylyukova M, Pikulina G, Pronyaev VG, Saxena A, Schwerer O, Simakov SP, Sopper N, Suzuki R, Takács S, Tao X, Taova S, Tárkányi F, Varlamov VV, Wang J, Yang SC, Zerkin V, Zhuang Y (2014) Towards a more complete and accurate experimental nuclear reaction data library (EXFOR): international collaboration between nuclear reaction data centres. Nucl Data Sheets 120:272–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 8.International Nuclear Information System (INIS), IAEA, Austria, Vienna. www.iaea.org/resources/databases/inis
 9.ENDF: International Evaluated Nuclear Data Files. For example: Chadwick MB, Herman M, Obložinský P, et al (2011) ENDF/BVII.1 nuclear data for science and technology: Cross sections, covariances, fission product yields and decay data. Nucl Data Sheets 112:2887–2996; Koning AJ, Forrest RA, Kellett MA, Mills RW, Henriksson H, Rugama Y (2006) The JEFF3.1 Nuclear Data Library, JEFF report 21. NEAOECD, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
 10.Burrows TW, Dempsey P (1980) The bibliography of the integral charged particle nuclear data, 4th edn, Suppl. 1–2. BNL report BNLNCS50640, Brookhaven, Upton, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
 11.Holden NE, Ravamataram S, Dunford CL (1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989) Integral charged particle nuclear data bibliography, 1st edn, Suppl. 1–5. BNL report BNLNCS51771, Brookhaven, Upton, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
 12.Karlstrom I, Christman DR (1975, 1978, 1983) Accelerator produced nuclides for use in biology and medicine. BNL report BNL50448, vol 1–3, Brookhaven, Upton, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
 13.Dmitriev PP (1986) Radionuclide yield in reactions with protons, deuterons, alpha particles and helium3. IAEA report INDC(CCP)263, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: https://wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcccp0263.pdf
 14.GandariasCruz D, Okamoto K (1988) Status on compilation of nuclear data for medical radioisotopes produced by accelerators. IAEA report INDC(NDS)209, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: https://wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0209.pdf
 15.Landolt Börnstein Series Keller KA, Lange J, Münzel H, Pfenning G (1973) Excitation functions for chargedparticle induced nuclear reactions. LandoltBörnstein Series, Group I, vol 5/b, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
 16.Landolt Börnstein New Series. Iljinov AS, Semenov VG, Semenova MP, Sobolevsky NM, Udovenko LV. Production of radionuclides at intermediate energies, LandoltBörnstein, New Series, Group I, vol. 13, Springer, BerlinHeidelbergNew York—Subvolume A, 1991: Interactions of protons with targets from He to Br—Subvolume B, 1992: Interactions of protons with targets from Kr to Te—Subvolume C, 1993: Interactions of protons with targets from I to Am—Subvolume D, 1994: Interactions of protons with nuclei (supplement to I/13A, B, C). Semenov VG, Semenova MP, Sobolevsky NM, Interaction of deuterons, tritons and ^{3}Henuclei with nuclei in production of radionuclides at intermediate energies, LandoltBörnstein New Series, Group I, vol 13F, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany (1995). Semenov VG, Semenova MP, Sobolevsky NM, Interaction of particles with targets from He to Rb in production of radionuclides at intermediate energies, LandoltBörnstein New Series, Group I, vol 13G, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany (1996). Semenov VG, Semenova MP, Sobolevsky NM, Interaction of particles with targets in production of radionuclides at intermediate energies, LandoltBörnstein New Series, Group I, vol 13H, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany (1996)Google Scholar
 17.Tobailem J, de Lassus StGenies CH, Leveque L (1971) Sections Efficaces des Réactions Nucléaires induites par Protons, Deuterons, Particules Alpha, I. Réactions Nucléaires Moniteurs, CEA note CEAN1466(1) CEA, France. Tobaliem J, de Lassus St.Genies CH (1971) Sections Efficaces des Réactions Nucléaires induites par Protons, Deuterons, Particules Alpha, CEA note CEAN1466(1) CEA, FranceGoogle Scholar
 18.Albert P, Blondiaux G, Debrun JL, Giovagnoli A, Valladon M (1987) Handbook on nuclear activation data, 3–2. Activation crosssections for elements from lithium to sulphur, IAEA Technical Reports Series no. 273: 479–535, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. 33. Thick target yields for the production of radioisotopes, IAEA Technical Reports Series no. 273:537–628. IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/tecdocs/technicalreportsseries273.pdf
 19.Münzel H, KleweNebenius H, Lange J, Pfennig G, Hemberle K (1982) Karlsruhe charged particle reaction data compilation. Physics Data, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
 20.Koning AJ, Rochman D, Kopecký J, Sublet JCh, Bauge E, Hilaire S, Romain P, Morillon B, Duarte H, van der Marck S, Pomp S, Sjostrand H, Forrest RA, Henriksson H, Cabellos O, Goriely S, Leppanen J, Leeb H, Plompen A, Mills RW, TENDL2015: TALYSbased evaluated nuclear data library, tendl.web.psi.ch/tendl_2015/tendl2015.html. TENDL2017: TALYSbased evaluated nuclear data library tendl.web.psi.ch/tendl_2017/tendl2017.html
 21.Koning AJ, Rochman D (2012) Modern nuclear data evaluation with the TALYS code system. Nucl Data Sheets 113:2841–2934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 22.Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM), JCGM 100: Evaluation of measurement data. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (ISO/IEC Guide 983). HTML version of JCGM 100 on which ISO/IEC Guide 983:2008 is based can be found at www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/JCGMintroduction.htm
 23.Schumaker LL (1981) Spline function: basic theory. John Wiley, New York, pp 108–118Google Scholar
 24.Padé HE (1892) Sur la représentation approchée d’ une fonction par des fractions rationnelles. Supplement to Ann Sci l’Ecole Norm Suppl Series 3 9: 3–93Google Scholar
 25.GravesMorris PR (ed) (1973) Padé approximants and their applications. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
 26.Baker GA Jr (1975) Essentials of Padé approximants. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
 27.Vinogradov VN, Gai EV, Rabotnov NS (1987) Analytical approximation of data in nuclear and neutron physics. Energoatomizdat, Moscow (in Russian) Google Scholar
 28.Badikov SA, Gai EV (2003) Some sources of the underestimation of evaluated crosssection uncertainties, IAEA report INDC(NDS)438 117–129, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0438.pdf
 29.Gai EV (2007) Some algorithms for the nuclear data evaluation and construction of the uncertainty covariance matrices. Prob Atom Sci Technol Ser Nucl Constants 1–2:56–65Google Scholar
 30.Hermanne A, Ignatyuk AV, Capote R, Carlson BV, Engle JW, Kellett MA, Kibedi T, Kim G, Kondev FG, Hussain M, Lebeda O, Luca A, Nagai Y, Naik H, Nichols AL, Nortier FM, Suryanarayana SV, Takács S, Tárkányi FT, Verpelli M (2018) Reference cross sections for chargedparticle monitor reactions. Nucl Data Sheets 148:338–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 31.Bonardi M (1987) The contribution to nuclear data for biomedical radioisotope production from the Milan Cyclotron Laboratory, Consultants’ Meeting on Data Requirements for Medical Radioisotope Production, 20–24 April 1987, Tokyo, Japan (Okamoto K, ed), IAEA report INDC(NDS) 195:98–112, IAEA, Vienna, Austria (1988). Available online at: https://wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0195.pdf
 32.Otuka N, Takács S (2015) Definitions of radioisotope thick target yields. Radiochim Acta 103:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 33.de Waal TJ, Peisach M, Pretorius R (1971) Activation cross sections for protoninduced reactions on calcium isotopes up to 5.6 MeV. J Inorg Nucl Chem 33:2783–2789. EXFOR: O0748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 34.Cheng CW, King JD (1979) Cross sections for the ^{42}Ca(p, γ)^{43}Sc, ^{42}Ca(α, n)^{45}Ti and ^{44}Ca(p, n)^{44}Sc reactions. J Phys G: Nucl Phys 5:1261–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 35.Mitchell LW, Anderson MR, Kennett SR, Sargood DG (1982) Cross sections and thermonuclear reaction rates for ^{42}Ca(p, γ)^{43}Sc, ^{44}Ca(p, γ)^{45}Sc, ^{44}Ca(p, n) ^{44}Sc and ^{45}Sc(p, n)^{45}Ti. Nucl Phys A 380:318–334. EXFOR: A0307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 36.Levkovskij VN (1991) Activation cross sections for the nuclides of medium mass region (A = 40–100) with protons and α particles at medium (E = 10–50 MeV) energies. Experiment and systematics), INTERVESTI, Moscow. EXFOR: A0510Google Scholar
 37.Krajewski S, Cydzik I, Abbas K, Bulgheroni A, Simonelli F, Holzwarth U, Bilewicz A (2013) Cyclotron production of ^{44}Sc for clinical application. Radiochim Acta 101:333–338. EXFOR: O2136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 38.Braccini S (2016) Unpublished information on studies at University Bern (private communication)Google Scholar
 39.Duchemin C, Guertin A, Haddad F, Michel N, Métivier V (2015) Production of scandium44m and scandium44g with deuterons on calcium44: cross section measurements and production yield calculations. Phys Med Biol 60:6847–6864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 40.de Waal TJ, Peisach M, Pretorius R (1971) Activation cross sections for deuteroninduced reactions on calcium isotopes up to 5.5 MeV. Radiochim. Acta 15:123–127. EXFOR: R0045Google Scholar
 41.McGee T, Rao CL, Saha GB, Yaffe L (1970) Nuclear interactions of ^{45}Sc and ^{68}Zn with protons of medium energy. Nucl Phys A 150:11–29. EXFOR: B0053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 42.Ejnisman R, Goldman ID, Pascholati PR, Da Cruz MT, Olivera RM, Norman EB, Zlimen I, Wietfeldt FE, Larimer RM, Chan YD, Lesko KT, Garcia A (1996) Cross sections for ^{45}Sc(p,2n)^{44}Ti and related reactions. Phys Rev C 54:2047–2050. EXFOR: C0438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 43.Daraban L, AdamRebeles R, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2009) Cross sections for ^{45}Sc(p,2n)^{44}Ti and related reactions: Study of the excitation functions for ^{43}K, ^{43,44,44m}Sc and ^{44}Ti by proton irradiation on ^{45}Sc up to 37 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 267:755–759. EXFOR: D4211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 44.Hermanne A, AdamRebeles R, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Takács MP, Csikái J, Ignatyuk A (2012) Cross sections of deuteron induced reactions on ^{45}Sc up to 50 MeV: experiments and comparison with theoretical codes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 270:106–115. EXFOR: D4257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 45.Tanaka S, Furukawa M, Chiba M (1972) Nuclear reactions of nickel with protons up to 56 MeV. J Inorg Nucl Chem 34:2419–2426. EXFOR: B0020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 46.Steyn GF, Mills SJ, Nortier FM, Simpson BRS, Meyer BR (1990) Production of ^{52}Fe via protoninduced reactions on manganese and nickel. Appl Radiat Isot 41:315–325. EXFOR: A0497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 47.Titarenko Yu E, Batyaev VF, Titarenko AYu, Butko MA, Pavlov KV, Florya SN, Tikhonov RS, Zhivun VM, Ignatyuk AV, Mashnik SG, Leray S, Boudard A, Cugnon J, Mancusi D, Yariv Y, Nishihara K, Matsuda N, Kumawat H, Mank G, Gudowski W (2011) Measurement and simulation of the cross sections for nuclide production in Nb93 and Ninat targets irradiated with 0.04 to 2.6GeV protons. Yadernaya Fizika 74:548–560. EXFOR: A0906Google Scholar
 48.Hermanne A, AdamRebeles R, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Ditrói F (2015) Proton and deuteron induced reactions on ^{nat}Ga: Experimental and calculated excitation functions. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 359:145–154. EXFOR: D4343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 49.Suzuki K (1985) Production of ^{52}Fe by the ^{55}Mn(p,4n)^{52}Fe reaction and milking of ^{52m}Mn from ^{52}Fe. Radioisotopes 34:537–542. EXFOR: E2397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 50.Deptula C, Kim SH, Knotek O, Mikolajewski S, Popinenkova LM, Rurarz E, Zaitseva NG (1990) Excitation functions and yields of some nuclear reactions induced by 100 MeV energy protons in Mn and Co targetsproduction of Fe52. Nukleonika 35:49–61. EXFOR: A0573Google Scholar
 51.Zaitseva NG, Deptula C, Knotek O, Kim SK, Mikolaevsky S, Mikecz P, Rurarz E, Khalkin VA, Konov VA, Popinenkova LM (1991) Cross sections for the 100 MeV protoninduced nuclear reactions and yields of some radionuclides used in nuclear medicine. Radiochim Acta 54:57–72. EXFOR: A0918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 52.Akiha F, Aburai T, Nozaki T, Murakami Y (1972) Yield of ^{52}Fe for the reactions of ^{3}He and on chromium. Radiochim Acta 18:108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 53.Chowdhury DP, Pal S, Saha SK, Gangadharan S (1995) Determination of cross section of αinduced nuclear reaction on natural Cr and Zr by stacked foil activation for thin layer activation analysis. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B103:261–266. EXFOR: A0204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 54.Hermanne A, AdamRebeles R, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2015) Alpha particle induced reactions on ^{nat}Cr up to 39 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B356–357:28–41. EXFOR: D4335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 55.Boehm F, Marmier P, Preiswerk P (1952) Relative cross sections for the excitation of isomers and ground states by (p, n) reaction. Helv Phys Acta 25:599–604. EXFOR: O2127Google Scholar
 56.Blosser HG, Handley TH (1955) Survey of (p, n) reactions at 12 MeV. Phys Rev 100:1340–1344. EXFOR: B0052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 57.Taketani H, Alford WP (1962) (p,n) Cross Sections on Ti^{47}, V^{51}, Cr^{52}, Co^{59}, and Cu^{63} from 4 to 6.5 MeV. Phys Rev 125:291–294. EXFOR: B0051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 58.Wing J, Huizenga JR (1962) (p, n) Cross sections of V^{51}, Cr^{52}, Cu^{63}, Cu^{65}, Ag^{107}, Ag^{109}, Cd^{111}, Cd^{114}, and La^{139} from 5 to 10.5 MeV. Phys Rev 128:280–290. EXFOR: T0124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 59.Barrandon JN, Debrun JL, Kohn A, Spear RH (1975) Étude du dosage de Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Ni, Cu et Zn par activation avec des protons d’énergie limitée a 20 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods 127:269–278. EXFOR: O0086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 60.Muminov VA, Mukhammedov S, Vasidov A (1980) Possibilities of protonactivation analysis for determining the content of elements from shortlived radionuclides. Atomnaya Energiya 49:101–105. EXFOR: A0085Google Scholar
 61.Skakun EA, Baty VG, Rakivnenko Yu N, Rastrepin OA (1986) Investigation of cross sections of reactions ^{52}Cr(p,n)^{52g52m}Mn and ^{54}Cr(p,n)^{54}Mn at incident energies of 5–9 MeV. Izv Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk Ser Fiz 50:2043. EXFOR: A0292Google Scholar
 62.West HI, Lanier RG Jr, Mustafa MG (1987) ^{52}Cr(p, n)^{52g}Mn,^{52m}Mn and ^{52}Cr(d,2n)^{52g}Mn,^{52m}Mn excitation functions. Phys Rev C 35:2067–2076. EXFOR: C0336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 63.Cogneau M, Gilly L, Cara J (1966) Absolute cross sections and excitation functions for deuteron induced reactions on chromium between 2 and 12 MeV. Nucl Phys 79:203–208. EXFOR: O2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 64.Tanaka S, Furukawa M (1959) Excitation functions for (p, n) reactions with titanium, vanadium, chromium, iron and nickel up to E _{p} = 14 MeV. J Phys Soc Jpn 14:1269–1275. EXFOR: B0043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 65.Lindner B, James RA (1959) Cross sections for nuclear reactions involving nuclear isomers. Phys Rev 114:322–325. EXFOR: C0698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 66.Antropov AE, Gusev VP, Zarubin PP, Ioannu PD, Padalko VYu (1980) Measurement of the total cross section for the (p, n) reaction on medium mass atomic nuclei with 6 MeV protons. 30th Conference nuclear spectroscopy and nuclear structure, USSR, Leningrad, p 316. EXFOR: A0072Google Scholar
 67.Buchholz M, Spahn I, Scholten B, Coenen HH (2013) Crosssection measurements for the formation of manganese52 and its isolation with a nonhazardous eluent. Radiochim Acta 101:491–500. EXFOR: O2176Google Scholar
 68.Wooten AL, Lewis BC, Lapi SE (2015) Crosssections for (p, x) reactions on natural chromium for the production of ^{52,52m,54}Mn radioisotopes. Appl Radiat Isot 96:154–161. EXFOR: C2145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 69.Zherebchevsky VI, Alekseev IE, Gridnev KA, Krymov EB, Lazareva TV, Maltsev NA, Panin RB, Prokofyev NA, Torilov SY, Shtamburg AI (2016) The study of the nuclear reactions for the production of antimony isotopes. Izv Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk Ser Fiz 80:975. EXFOR: F1298Google Scholar
 70.Burgus WH, Cowan GA, Hadley JW, Hess W, Shull T, Stevenson ML, York HF (1954) Cross sections for the reactions Ti^{48}(d,2n)V^{48}; Cr^{52}(d,2n)Mn^{52}; and Fe^{56}(d,2n)Co^{56}. Phys Rev 95:750–751. EXFOR: D4102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 71.Xiaowu C, Zhenxia W, Zhenjie W, Jinqing Y (1966) Some measurements of deuteron induced excitation function at 13 MeV. Acta Physica Sinica 22:250–252. EXFOR: S0060Google Scholar
 72.Nassiff SJ, Münzel H (1973) Cross sections for the reactions ^{66}Zn(d, n)^{67}Ga, ^{52}Cr(d,2n)^{52g}Mn and ^{186}W(d,2n)^{186}Re. Radiochim Acta 19:97–99. EXFOR: A0202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 73.Hermanne A, Adam RR, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Takács M, Ignatyuk A (2011) Cross sections of deuteron induced reactions on ^{nat}Cr up to 50 MeV: Experiments and comparison with theoretical codes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 269:2563–2571. EXFOR: D4252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 74.Kaufman S (1960) Reactions of protons with Ni58 and Ni60. Phys Rev 117:1532–1538. EXFOR: B0055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 75.Ewart HA, Blann M (1964) Private communication. EXFOR: C1012. Ewart HA, Blann M (1964) Data taken from McGowen et al., ORNL report ORNLCPX2. EXFOR: C1012Google Scholar
 76.Haasbroek FJ, Steyn J, Neirinckx RD, Burdzik GF, Cogneau M, Wanet P (1977) Excitation functions and thick target yields for radioisotopes induced in natural Mg Co, Ni and Ta By medium energy protons. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, report no. 89, 1976, Pretoria, South Africa. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 28:533–534. EXFOR: B0098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 77.Brinkman GA, Helmer J, Lindner L (1977) Nickel and copper foils as monitors for cyclotron beam intensities. Radiochem Radioanal Lett 28:9–19. EXFOR: D0162Google Scholar
 78.Michel R, Weigel H, Herr W (1978) Protoninduced reactions on nickel with energies between12 and 45 MeV. Z Phys A 286:393–400. EXFOR: B0083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 79.Michel R, Brinkmann G (1980) On the depthdependent production of radionuclides (A between 44 and 59) by solar protons in extraterrestrial matter. J Radioanal Chem 59:467–510. EXFOR: A0145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 80.Tárkányi F, Szelecsényi F, Kopecký P (1991) Excitation functions of proton induced nuclear reactions on natural nickel for monitoring beam energy and intensity. Appl Radiat Isot 42:513–517. EXFOR: D4002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 81.Sonck M, Van Hoyweghen J, Hermanne A (1996) Determination of the external beam energy of a variable energy multiparticle cyclotron. Appl Radiat Isot 47:445–449. EXFOR: D0393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 82.Michel R, Bodemann R, Busemann H, Daunke R, Gloris M, Lange HJ, Klug B, Krins A, Leya I, Lüpke M, Neumann S, Reinhardt H, SchnatzButtgen M, Herpers U, Schiekel T, Sudbrock F, Holmqvist B, Conde H, Malmborg P, Suter M, DittrichHannen B, Kubik PW, Synal HA, Filges D (1997) Cross sections for the production of residual nuclides by low and mediumenergy protons from the target elements C, N, O, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Mn, Fe Co, Ni, Cu, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Ba and Au. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 129:153–193. EXFOR: O0276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 83.Reimer P, Qaim SM (1998) Excitation functions of proton induced reactions on highly enriched ^{58}Ni with special relevance to the production of ^{55}Co and ^{57}Co. Radiochim Acta 80:113–120. EXFOR: D4078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 84.AlSaleh FS, Al Mugren KS, Azzam A (2007) Excitation functions of (p, x) reactions on natural nickel between proton energies of 2.7 and 27.5 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 65:104–113. EXFOR: O1503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 85.Khandaker MU, Kim K, Lee M, Kim KS, Kim G (2011) Excitation functions of (p, x) reactions on natural nickel up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 269:1140–1149. EXFOR: D7002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 86.Jost CU, Griswold JR, Bruffey SH, Mirzadeh S, Stracener DW, Williams CL (2013) Measurement of cross sections for the ^{232}Th(p,4n)^{229}Pa reaction at low proton energies. Conf Proc Am Inst Phys 1525:520–524. EXFOR: C2048Google Scholar
 87.Amjed N, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A, Ditrói F, Takács S, Hussain M (2014) Activation crosssections of proton induced reactions on natural Ni up to 65 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 92:73–84. EXFOR: D4301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 88.Vlasov NA, Kalinin SP, Ogloblin AA, Pankramov VM, Rudakov VP, Serikov IN, Sidorov VA (1957) Excitation functions for the reactions Mg24(d, α)Na22, Fe54(d, α)Mn52, Fe54(d, n)Co55, and Zn66(d,2n)Ga66. Atomnaya Energiya 2:189–192. EXFOR: F1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 89.Clark JW, Fulmer CB, Williams IR (1969) Excitation function for radioactive nuclides produced by deuteroninduced reactions in iron. Phys Rev 179:1104–1108. EXFOR: T0199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 90.Coetzee PP, Peisach M (1972) Activation cross sections for deuteroninduced reactions on some elements of the first transition series, up to 5.5 MeV. Radiochim Acta 17:1–6. EXFOR: D4054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 91.Zhenlan T, Fuying Z, Huiyuan Q, Gongoing W (1984) Excitation function of deuteron induced reactions on natural iron. Atom Energy Sci Technol 18:506. EXFOR: S0015Google Scholar
 92.Zhao Wenrong L, Weixiang Hanlin, Yu, Jiantao C (1995) Excitation functions for reactions induced by deuteron in iron. Chin J Nucl Phys (Beijing) 17:163. EXFOR: S0044Google Scholar
 93.Zaman MR, Qaim SM (1996) Excitation functions of (d, n) and (d,α) reactions on ^{54}Fe: relevance to the production of high purity ^{55}Co at a small cyclotron. Radiochim Acta 75:59–63. EXFOR: D4131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 94.Hermanne A, Sonck M, Takács S, Tárkányi F (2000) Experimental study of excitation functions for some reactions induced by deuterons (10–50 MeV) on natural Fe and Ti. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B161–163:178–185. EXFOR: D4082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 95.Nakao M, Hori J, Ochiai K, Kubota N, Sato S, Yamauchi M, Ishioka NS, Nishitani T (2006) Measurements of deuteroninduced activation crosssections for IFMIF accelerator structural materials. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 562:785–788. EXFOR: E1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 96.Király B, Takács S, Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A (2009) Evaluated activation cross sections of longerlived radionuclides produced by deuteron induced reactions on natural iron up to 10 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 267:15–22. EXFOR: D4185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 97.Zavorka L, Šimečková E, Honusek M, Katovsky K (2011) The activation of Fe by deuterons of energies up to 20 MeV. J Korean Phys Soc 59:1961–1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 98.Cohen BL, Newman E (1955) (p, pn) And (p, 2n) cross sections in medium weight elements. Phys Rev 99:718–723. EXFOR: B0050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 99.Williams IR, Fulmer CB (1967) Excitation functions for radioactive isotopes produced by protons below 60 MeV on Al, Fe, and Cu. Phys Rev 162:1055–1061. EXFOR: B0073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 100.Jenkins IL, Wain AG (1970) Excitation functions for the bombardment of ^{56}Fe with protons. J Inorg Nucl Chem 32:1419–1425. EXFOR: B0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 101.Brodzinski RL, Rancitelli LA, Cooper JA, Wogman NA (1971) Highenergy proton spallation of iron. Phys Rev C 4:1257–1265. EXFOR: C0272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 102.Michel R, Brinkmann G, Weigel H, Herr W (1979) Measurement and hybridmodel analysis of protoninduced reactions with V, Fe and Co. Nucl Phys A 322:40–60. EXFOR: A0146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 103.LagunasSolar MC, Jungerman JA (1979) Cyclotron production of carrierfree Cobalt55, a new positronemitting label for bleomycin. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 30:25–32. EXFOR: A0182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 104.Zhuravlev BV, Grusha OV, Ivanova SP, Trykova VI, Shubin Y (1984) Analysis of neutron spectra in 22MeV proton interactions with nuclei. Yad Fiz 39:264–271. EXFOR: A0271Google Scholar
 105.Zhao Wenrong L, Weixiang Hanlin, Yu (1993) Measurement of cross sections by bombarding Fe with protons up to 19 MeV. Chin J Nucl Phys (Beijing) 15:337–340. EXFOR: A0600Google Scholar
 106.Daum E (1997) Investigation of light ion induced activation cross sections in iron. 1.1 Proton induced activation cross sections. Germany/IAEA report INDC(GER)043 (1997) 45, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: https://wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcger0043.pdf. PhD thesis, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe report no. 5833. EXFOR: O0498
 107.Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Csikái J, Uddin MS, Hagiwara M, Baba M (2004) Investigation of activation cross sections of the proton induced nuclear reactions on natural iron at medium energies. In: International conference on nuclear data for science and technology, vol 769. Santa Fe, NM, USA, p 1011. EXFOR: D4181Google Scholar
 108.AlAbyad M, Comsan MNH, Qaim SM (2009) Excitation functions of protoninduced reactions on ^{nat}Fe and enriched ^{57}Fe with particular reference to the production of ^{57}Co. Appl Radiat Isot 67:122–128. EXFOR: D0500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 109.Kim K, Khandaker MU, Naik H, Kim G (2014) Excitation functions of proton induced reactions on ^{nat}Fe in the energy region up to 45 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 322:63–69. EXFOR: D7007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 110.Blaser JP, Boehm F, Marmier P, Scherrer P (1951) Anregungsfunktionen und Wirkungsquerschnitte der (p, n)Reaktion (II). Helv Phys Acta 24:441–464. EXFOR: P0033Google Scholar
 111.Johnson CH, Trail CC, Galonsky A (1964) Thresholds for (p, n) reactions on 26 intermediateweight nuclei. Phys Rev 136:B1719–B1729. EXFOR: T0126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 112.Tingwell CIW, Hansper VY, Tims SG, Scott AF, Sargood DG (1988) Cross sections of proton induced reactions on ^{61}Ni. Nucl Phys A 480:162–174. EXFOR: F0833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 113.Szelecsényi F, Blessing G, Qaim SM (1993) Excitation functions of proton induced nuclear reactions on enriched ^{61}Ni and ^{64}Ni: Possibility of production of nocarrieradded ^{61}Cu and ^{64}Cu at a small cyclotron. Appl Radiat Isot 44:575–580. EXFOR: D4020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 114.Singh BP, Sharma MK, Musthafa MM, Bhardwaj HD, Prasad R (2006) A study of preequilibrium emission in some proton and alphainduced reactions. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 562:717–720. EXFOR: D6012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 115.Hermanne A, AdamRebeles R, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2015) Excitation functions of proton induced reactions on ^{nat}Os up to 65 MeV: experiments and comparison with results from theoretical codes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 45:58–68. EXFOR: D4324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 116.Uddin MS, Chakraborty AK, Spellerberg S, Shariff MA, Das S, Rashid MA, Spahn I, Qaim SM (2016) Experimental determination of proton induced reaction cross sections on ^{nat}Ni near threshold energy. Radiochim Acta 104:305–314. EXFOR: D0802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 117.Uddin MS, Sudar S, Spahn I, Shariff MA, Qaim SM (2016) Excitation function of the ^{60}Ni(p, γ)^{61}Cu reaction from threshold to 16 MeV. Phys Rev C 93:044606. EXFOR: D0808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 118.Cogneau M, Gilly LJ, Cara J (1967) Absolute cross sections and excitation functions for deuteroninduced reactions on the nickel isotopes between 2 and 12 MeV. Nucl Phys A 99:686–694. EXFOR: D0076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 119.Takács S, Sonck M, Azzam A, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F (1997) Activation cross section measurements of deuteron induced reactions on ^{nat}Ni with special reference to beam monitoring and production of ^{61}Cu for medical purpose. Radiochim Acta 76:15–24. EXFOR: D4045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 120.Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Kovalev SF, Ignatyuk A (2007) Activation cross sections of the ^{64}Ni(d,2n) reaction for the production of the medical radionuclide ^{64}Cu. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 258:308–312. EXFOR: D4182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 121.Hermanne A, Takács S, AdamRebeles R, Tárkányi F, Takács MP (2013) New measurements and evaluation of database for deuteron induced reaction on Ni up to 50 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 299:8–23. EXFOR: D4282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 122.Cohen BL, Newman E, Charpie RA, Handley TH (1954) (p, pn) and (p, αn) excitation functions. Phys Rev 94:620–624. EXFOR: B0072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 123.Szelecsényi F, Kovács Z, Suzuki K, Okada K, van der Walt TN, Steyn GF, Mukherjee S (2005) Production possibility of ^{61}Cu using proton induced nuclear reactions on zinc for PET studies. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 263:539–546. EXFOR: E1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 124.Uddin MS, Khandaker MU, Kim KS, Lee YS, Kim GN (2007) Excitation functions of the proton induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Zn up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 258:313–320. EXFOR: O1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 125.Asad AH, Chan S, Morandeau L, Cryer D, Smith SV, Price RI (2014) Excitation functions of ^{nat}Zn(p, x) nuclear reactions with proton beam energy below 18 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 94:67–71. EXFOR: D0734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 126.Gyurky G, Fulop Z, Halasz Z, Kiss GG, Szǔcs T (2014) Direct study of the αnucleus optical potential at astrophysical energies using the ^{64}Zn(p, α)^{61}Cu reaction. Phys Rev C 90:052801. EXFOR: D4319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 127.Ghoshal SN (1950) An experimental verification of the theory of compound nucleus. Phys Rev 80:939–942. EXFOR: B0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 128.Greene MW, Lebowitz E (1972) Proton reactions with copper for auxiliary cyclotron beam monitoring. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 23:342–344. EXFOR: B0074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 129.Grütter A (1982) Excitation functions for radioactive isotopes produced by proton bombardment of Cu and Al in the energy range of 16 to 70 MeV. Nucl Phys A 383:98–108. EXFOR: D0505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 130.Greenwood LR, Smither RK (1984) Measurement of Cu spallation cross sections at IPNS, US Dept. of Energy, Fusion Energy Series, vol 18, no. 0046, p 11. EXFOR: C0537Google Scholar
 131.Kopecký J (1985) Proton beam monitoring via the Cu(p, x)^{58}Co,^{63}Cu(p,2n)^{62}Zn and ^{65}Cu(p, n)^{65}Zn reactions in copper. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 36:657–661. EXFOR: A0333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 132.Aleksandrov VN, Semenova MP, Semenov VG (1987) Production cross section of radionuclides in (p, x) reactions at copper and nickel nuclei. Atomnaya Energiya 62:411–413. EXFOR: A0351Google Scholar
 133.Mills SJ, Steyn GF, Nortier FM (1992) Experimental and theoretical excitation functions of radionuclides produced in proton bombardment of copper up to 200 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 43:1019–1030. EXFOR: A0507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 134.Hermanne A, Szelecsényi F, Sonck M, Takács S, Tárkányi F, van den Winkel P (1999) New cross section data on ^{68}Zn(p,2n)^{67}Ga and ^{nat}Zn(p, xn)^{67}Ga nuclear reactions for the development of a reference data base. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 240:623–630. EXFOR: D4088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 135.Szelecsényi F, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Hermanne A, Sonck M, Shubin Yu, Mustafa MG, Zhuang Y (2001) Excitation function for the ^{nat}Ti(p, x)^{48}V nuclear process: evaluation and new measurements for practical applications. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 174:47–64. EXFOR: D4083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 136.Takács S, Tárkányi F, Sonck M, Hermanne A (2002) New crosssections and intercomparison of proton monitor reactions on Ti, Ni and Cu. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 188:106–111. EXFOR: D4106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 137.Uddin MS, Hagiwara M, Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Baba M (2004) Experimental studies on the protoninduced activation reactions of molybdenum in the energy range 22–67 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 60:911–920. EXFOR: E1894PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
 138.Buthelezi EZ, Nortier FM, Schroeder IW (2006) Excitation functions for the production of ^{82}Sr by proton bombardment of ^{nat}Rb at energies up to 100 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 64:915–924. EXFOR: O1424PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
 139.AlSaleh FS, AlHarbi AA, Azzam A (2006) Excitation functions of proton induced nuclear reactions on natural copper using a mediumsized cyclotron. Radiochim Acta 94:391–396. EXFOR: D0422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 140.Khandaker MU, Uddin MS, Kim KS, Lee YS, Kim GN (2007) Measurement of crosssections for the (p, xn) reactions in natural molybdenum. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 262:171–181. EXFOR: D04461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 141.Siiskonen T, Huikari J, Haavisto T, Bergman J, Heselius SJ, Lill JO, Lönnroth T, Peräjärvi K (2009) Excitation functions of protoninduced reactions in ^{nat}Cu in the energy range 7–17 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 67:2037–2039. EXFOR: D0549PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
 142.Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Takács S, Ignatyuk AV (2012) Investigation of activation crosssections of proton induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Mo up to 40 MeV: new data and evaluation. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 280:45–73. EXFOR: D4264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 143.Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2013) Experiments onTi, Cu and Ni foils with protons of 36, 25 and 17 MeV at VUB cyclotron (private communication)Google Scholar
 144.Lebeda O (2014) Crosssection values for proton and deuteron beam monitoring (private communication at Second Research Coordination Meeting, IAEA, Vienna, Austria)Google Scholar
 145.Shahid M, Kim K, Naik H, Zaman M, Yang SC, Kim GN (2015) Measurement of excitation functions in proton induced reactions on natural copper from their threshold to 43 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 342:305–313. EXFOR: D7015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 146.Lebeda O (2016) New crosssections for the ^{nat}Ti(p,x)^{48}V^{46}Sc reactions (private communication)Google Scholar
 147.Bartell FO, Helmholz AC, Softky SD, Stewart DB (1950) Excitation functions for spallation reactions on Cu. Phys Rev 80:1006–1010. EXFOR: P0069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 148.Fulmer CB, Williams IR (1970) Excitation functions for radioactive nuclides produced by deuteroninduced reactions in copper. Nucl Phys A 155:40–48. EXFOR: B0121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 149.Takács S, Tárkányi F, Király B, Hermanne A, Sonck M (2006) Evaluated activation cross sections of longerlived radionuclides produced by deuteroninduced reaction on natural copper. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 251:56–65. EXFOR: D4176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 150.Šimečková E, Bém P, Honusek M, Stefanik M, Fischer U, Simakov SP, Forrest RA, Koning AJ, Sublet JCh, Avrigeanu M, Roman FL, Avrigeanu VA (2011) Low and medium energy deuteroninduced reactions on ^{63,65}Cu nuclei. Phys Rev C 84:014605. EXFOR: D0653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 151.AdamRebeles R, Van den Winkel P, Hermanne A (2011) Activation cross section of deuteron induced reactions on natural thallium for the production of ^{203}Pb. J Korean Phys Soc 59:1975–1978. EXFOR: D4249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 152.AdamRebeles R, Van den Winkel P, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2012) Experimental excitation functions of deuteron induced reactions on natural thallium up to 50 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 288:94–101. EXFOR: D4270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 153.Hermanne A, AdamRebeles R, Van den Winkel P, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2014) Activation of ^{112}Cd by deuteron induced reactions up to 50 MeV: an alternative for ^{111}In production? Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 339:26–33. EXFOR: D4314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 154.Tanaka S (1960) Reactions of nickel with alphaparticles. J Phys Soc Jpn 15:2159–2167. EXFOR: P0037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 155.Neirinckx RD (1977) Excitation function for the ^{60}Ni(α,2n)^{62}Zn reaction and production of ^{62}Zn bleomycin. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 28:808–809. EXFOR: B0164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 156.Muramatsu H, Shirai E, Nakahara H, Murakami Y (1978) Alpha particle bombardment of natural nickel target for the production of ^{61}Cu. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 29:611–614. EXFOR: B0128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 157.Michel R, Brinkmann G, Stuck R (1983) Integral excitation functions of αinduced reactions on titanium, iron and nickel. Radiochim Acta 32:173–189. EXFOR: A0148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 158.Takács S, Tárkányi F, Kovács Z (1996) Excitation function of alphaparticle induced nuclear reactions on natural nickel. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 113:424–428. EXFOR: D4050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 159.Singh NL, Mukherjee S, Gadkari MS (2005) Excitation functions of alpha induced reactions on natural nickel up to 50 MeV. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 14:611–629. EXFOR: O1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 160.Yadav A, Singh PP, Sharma MK, Singh DP, Unnati SB, Prasad R, Musthafa MM (2008) Large preequilibrium contribution in α + ^{nat}Ni interactions at ≈ 8–40 MeV. Phys Rev C78:044606. EXFOR: D6067Google Scholar
 161.Antropov AE, Zarubin PP, Aleksandrov Yu A, Gorshkov IY (1985) Study of the cross section for the reactions (p, n),(α, pn),(α, xn) on medium weight nuclei. In: 35th Conference nuclear spectroscopy and nuclear structure, Leningrad, p 369. EXFOR: O0076Google Scholar
 162.Antropov AE, Gusev VP, Zhuravlev Y, Zarubin PP, Kolozhvary AA, Smirnov AV (1992) Total cross sections of (p, n) reaction on the nuclei of isotopes nickel and zinc at E(p) = 5–6 MeV. Izv Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk Ser Fiz 56:198. EXFOR: A0543Google Scholar
 163.Piel H, Qaim SM, Stocklin G (1992) Excitation function of (p, xn)reactions on ^{nat}Ni and highly enriched ^{62}Ni: possibility of production of medically important radioisotope ^{62}Cu at a small cyclotron. Radiochim Acta 57:1–5. EXFOR: D0056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 164.Blaser JP, Boehm F, Marmier P, Peaslee DC (1951) Fonctions d’excitation de la reaction (p, n). Helv Phys Acta 24:3–38. EXFOR: B0048Google Scholar
 165.Howe HA (1958) (p, n) cross sections of copper and zinc. Phys Rev 109:2083–2085. EXFOR: B0060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 166.Hille M, Hille P, Uhl M, Weisz W (1972) Excitation functions of (p, n) and (α, n) reactions on Ni, Cu and Zn. Nucl Phys A 198:625–640. EXFOR: B0058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 167.Little FE, LagunasSolar MC (1983) Cyclotron production of ^{67}Ga. Cross sections and thicktarget yields for the ^{67}Zn(p,n) and ^{68}Zn(p,2n) reactions. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 34:631–637. EXFOR: A0321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 168.Kopecký P (1990) Cross sections and production yields of ^{66}Ga and ^{67}Ga for proton reactions in natural zinc. Appl Radiat Isot 41:606–608. EXFOR: D0089 #1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 169.Tárkányi F, Szelecsényi F, Kovács Z, Sudar S (1990) Excitation functions of proton induced nuclear reactions on enriched ^{66}Zn, ^{67}Zn and ^{68}Zn production of ^{67}Ga and ^{66}Ga. Radiochim Acta 50:19–26. EXFOR: D4004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 170.Hermanne A, Walravens N, Cicchelli O (192) Optimization of isotope production by cross section determination. In: Qaim SM (ed) International conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 13–17 May 1991, Jülich, Germany. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 616–618. EXFOR: A0494Google Scholar
 171.Nortier FM, Mills SJ, Steyn GF (1991) Excitation functions and yields of relevance to the production of ^{67}Ga by proton bombardment of ^{nat}Zn and ^{nat}Ge up to 100 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 42:353–359. EXFOR: A0498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 172.Szelecsényi F, Boothe TE, Tavano E, Plitnikas ME, Feijoo Y, Takács S, Tárkányi F, Szǔcs Z (1994) New cross section data for 666768 Zn + p reactions up to 26 MeV. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, USA (1994) 393. EXFOR: D40250Google Scholar
 173.Hermanne A (1997) Evaluated cross section and thick target yield data of Zn + p processes for practical applications (private communication). EXFOR: D4093Google Scholar
 174.Szelecsényi F, Boothe TE, Takács S, Tárkányi F, Tavano E (1998) Evaluated cross section and thick target yield data bases of Zn + p processes for practical applications. Appl Radiat Isot 49:1005–1032. EXFOR: C0506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 175.Szelecsényi F, Kovács Z, van der Walt TN, Steyn GF, Suzuki K, Okada K (2003) Investigation of the ^{nat}Zn(p,x)^{62}Zn nuclear process up to 70 MeV: a new 62Zn/62Cu generator. Appl Radiat Isot 58:377–384. EXFOR: D4117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 176.Szelecsényi F, Steyn GF, Kovács Z, van der Walt TN, Suzuki K, Okada K, Mukai K (2005) New crosssection data for the ^{66}Zn(p, n)^{66}Ga, ^{68}Zn(p,3n)^{66}Ga, ^{nat}Zn(p, x)^{66}Ga, ^{68}Zn(p,2n)^{67}Ga and ^{nat}Zn(p, x)^{67}Ga nuclear reactions up to 100 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 234:375–386. EXFOR: E1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 177.AlSaleh FS, Al Mugren KS, Azzam A (2007) Excitation function measurements and integral yields estimation for ^{nat}Zn(p, x) reactions, at low energies. Appl Radiat Isot 65:1101–1107. EXFOR: O1547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 178.Porges KG (1956) Alpha excitation functions of silver and copper. Phys Rev 101:225–230. EXFOR: R0039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 179.Porile NT, Morrison DL (1959) Reactions of Cu^{63} and Cu^{65} with alpha particles. Phys Rev 116:1193–1200. EXFOR: B0156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 180.Bryant EA, Cochran DRF, Knight JD (1963) Excitation functions of reactions of 7 to 24 MeV He^{3} Ions with Cu^{63} and Cu^{65}. Phys Rev 130:1512–1522. EXFOR: B0079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 181.Stelson PH, McGowan FK (1964) Cross sections for (α, n) reactions for medium weight nuclei. Phys Rev 133:B911–B919. EXFOR: P0058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 182.Zhukova OA, Kanasevich VI, Laptev SV, Chursin GP (1970) Excitation functions of αparticle induced reactions on copper isotopes at energies up to 30 MeV. Izv Akad Nauk Kaz SSR Ser FizMat 4:1Google Scholar
 183.Nassiff SJ, Nassiff W (1983) Cross sections and thick target yields of alphaparticle induced reactions. IAEA contract 2499/R1/RB. EXFOR: D0046Google Scholar
 184.Rizvi IA, Ansari MA, Gautam RP, Singh RKY, Chaubey AK (1987) Excitation functions studies of (α, xpyn) reactions for 63,65Cu and preequilibrium effect. J. Phys. Soc. Japan 56:3135–3144. EXFOR: D0090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 185.Zweit J, Sharma H, Downey S (1987) Production of gallium66, a short lived positron emitting radionuclide. Appl Radiat Isot 38:499–501. EXFOR: D0119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 186.Bhardwaj HD, Gautam AK, Prasad R (1988) Measurement and analysis of excitation functions for alphainduced reactions in copper. Pramana J Phys 31:109–123. EXFOR: A0465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 187.Mohan Rao AV, Mukherjee S, Rama Rao J (1991) Alpha particle induced reactions on copper and tantalum. Pramana J. Phys. 36:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 188.Bonesso O, Ozafran MJ, Mosca HO, Vazquez ME, Capurro OA, Nassiff SJ (1991) Study of preequilibrium effects on αinduced reactions on copper. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 152:189–197. EXFOR: D0092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 189.Tárkányi F, Szelecsényi F, Kopecký P (1992) Cross section data for proton, He and αparticle induced reactions on ^{nat}Ni, ^{nat}Cu and ^{nat}Ti for monitoring beam performance. In: Qaim SM (ed) International conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 13–17 May 1991, Jülich, Germany. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp 529–532. EXFOR: D4080Google Scholar
 190.Singh NL, Patel BJ, Somayajulu DRS, Chintalapudi SN (1994) Analysis of the excitation functions of (α, xnyp) reactions on natural copper. Pramana J Phys 42:349–363. EXFOR: D0099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 191.Tárkányi F, Szelecsényi F, Takács S, Hermanne A, Sonck M, Thielemans A, Mustafa MG, Shubin Y, Zhuang Y (2000) New experimental data, compilation and evaluation for the ^{nat}Cu(α, x)^{66}Ga, ^{nat}Cu(α, x)^{67}Ga and ^{nat}Cu(α, x)^{65}Zn monitor reactions. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 168:144–168. EXFOR: D4085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 192.Szelecsényi F, Suzuki K, Kovács Z, Takei M, Okada K (2001) Alpha beam monitoring via ^{nat}Cu + alpha processes in the energy range from 40 to 60 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 184:589–596. EXFOR: E1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 193.Takács S, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A (2007) Cross section measurements of nuclear reactions on Cu and Ti target by alpha bombardment for monitoring use (private communication)Google Scholar
 194.AdamRebeles R, Hermanne A, Van den Winkel P, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Daraban L (2008) Alpha induced reactions on ^{114}Cd and ^{116}Cd: An experimental study of excitation functions. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 266:4731–4737. EXFOR: D4204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 195.Szelecsényi F, Kovács Z, Nagatsu K, Fukumura K, Suzuki K, Mukai K (2012) Investigation of direct production of ^{68}Ga with low energy multiparticle accelerator. Radiochim Acta 100:5–11. EXFOR: D4276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 196.Shahid M, Kim K, Kim G, Zaman M, Nadeem M (2015) Measurement of excitation functions in alpha induced reactions on ^{nat}Cu. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 358:160–167. EXFOR: D7016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 197.Kotelnikova GV, Lovchikova GN, Sal`nikov OA, Simakov SP, Trufanov AM, Fetisov NI (1980) The investigation of neutron energy spectra for ^{68}Zn(p,n)^{68}Ga reaction. FizEnergy Inst. Obninsk report no. 1141, 1. EXFOR: A0223Google Scholar
 198.Esat MT, Spear RH, Zyskind JL, Shapiro MH, Fowler WA, Davidson JM (1981) Test of global HauserFeshbach calculations for protoninduced reactions on ^{68}Zn. Phys Rev C 23:1822–1825. EXFOR: C0650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 199.Vinogradov VM, Zhuravlev Y, Zarubin PP, Kolozhvari AA, Sergeev VO, Sitnikova IV (1993) Excitation functions of (p,n) reactions on zinc isotopes in the range of E(p) from 4.9 to 5.9 MeV. Izv Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk Ser Fiz 57(5):154. EXFOR: A0841Google Scholar
 200.Zhuravlev Y, Zarubin PP, Zeic Yu V, Kolozhvari AA, Chelgunov IV (1995) Excitation functions of (p,n) reactions on nuclei of isotopes Zn from E(p) = 5.6 To 6.8 MeV. Izv Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk Ser Fiz 59:118. EXFOR: A0550Google Scholar
 201.Mukherjee S, Kumar BB, Singh NL (1997) Excitation functions of alpha particle induced reactions on aluminium and copper. Pramana J Phys 49:253–261. EXFOR: O1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 202.Navin A, Tripathi V, Blumenfeld Y, Nanal V, Simenel C, Casandjian JM, de France G, Raabe R, Bazin D, Chatterjee A, Dasgupta M, Kailas S, Lemmon RC, Mahata K, Pillay RG, Pollacco EC, Ramachandran K, Rejmund M, Shrivastava A, Sida JL, Tryggestad E (2004) Direct and compound reactions induced by unstable helium beams near the Coulomb barrier. Phys Rev C 70:044601. EXFOR: D6021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 203.Porile NT, Tanaka S, Amano H, Furukawa M, Iwata S, Yagi M (1963) Nuclear reactions of Ga^{69} and Ga^{71} with 13–56 MeV protons. Nucl Phys 43:500–522. EXFOR: P0014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 204.AdamRebeles R, Hermanne A, Van den Winkel P, De Vis L, Waegeneer R, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Takács MP (2013) ^{68}Ge/^{68}Ga production revisited: excitation curves, target preparation and chemical separationpurification. Radiochim Acta 101:481–489. EXFOR: D4321Google Scholar
 205.Nozaki T, Itoh Y, Ogawa K (1979) Yield of ^{73}Se for various reactions and its chemical processing. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 30:595–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 206.Mushtaq A, Qaim SM, Stocklin G (1988) Production of ^{73}Se via (p,3n) and (d,4n) reactions on arsenic. Appl Radiat Isot 39:1085–1091. EXFOR: A0467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 207.Fassbender M, de Villiers D, Nortier M, van der Walt N (2001) The ^{nat}Br(p, x)^{73,75}Se nuclear processes: a convenient route for the production of radioselenium tracers relevant to amino acid labelling. Appl Radiat Isot 54:905–913. EXFOR: D0168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 208.de Villiers D, Nortier FM, Richter W (2002) Experimental and theoretical excitation functions for ^{nat}Br(p, x) reactions. Appl Radiat Isot 57:907–913. EXFOR: O1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 209.Basile D, Birattari C, Bonardi M, Goetz L, Sabbioni E, Salomone A (1981) Excitation functions and production of arsenic radioisotopes for environmental toxicology and biomedical purposes. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 32:403–410. EXFOR: A0190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 210.Horiguchi T, Kumahora H, Inoue H, Yoshizawa Y (1983) Excitation functions of Ge(p, xnyp) reactions and production of ^{68}Ge. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 34:1531–1535. EXFOR: E1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 211.Spahn I, Steyn GF, Nortier FM, Coenen HH, Qaim SM (2007) Excitation functions of ^{nat}Ge(p, xn)^{71,72,73,74}As reactions up to 100 MeV with a focus on the production of ^{72}As for medical and ^{73}As for environmental studies. Appl Radiat Isot 65:1057–1064. EXFOR: D0454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 212.Takács S, Takács MP, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, AdamRebeles R (2014) Excitation functions of longer lived radionuclides formed by deuteron irradiation of germanium. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 336:81–95. EXFOR: D4309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 213.Brodovitch JC, Hogan JJ, Burns KI (1976) The preequilibrium statistical model: comparison of calculations with two (p, xn) reactions. J Inorg Nucl Chem 38:1581–1586. EXFOR: C2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 214.Qaim SM, Mushtaq A, Uhl M (1988) Isomeric crosssection ratio for the formation of ^{73m,g}Se in various nuclear processes. Phys Rev C 38:645–650. EXFOR: O1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 215.Guillaume M, Lambrecht RM, Wolf AP (1978) Cyclotron isotopes and radiopharmaceuticals—XXVII. Se73. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 29:411–417. EXFOR: B0152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 216.Nozaki T, Iwamoto M, Itoh Y (1979) Production of ^{77}Br by various nuclear reactions. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 30:79–83. EXFOR: A0184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 217.Paans AMJ, Welleweerd J, Vaalburg W, Reiffers S, Woldring MG (1980) Excitation functions for the production of bromine75: A potential nuclide for the labelling of radiopharmaceuticals. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 31:267–273. EXFOR: A0253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 218.Kovács Z, Blessing G, Qaim SM, Stocklin G (1985) Production of ^{75}Br via the ^{76}Se(p,2n)^{75}Br reaction at a compact cyclotron. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 36:635–642. EXFOR: D0083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 219.Hassan HE, Qaim SM, Shubin Yu, Azzam A, Morsy M, Coenen HH (2004) Experimental studies and nuclear model calculations on protoninduced reactions on ^{nat}Se, ^{76}Se and ^{77}Se with particular reference to the production of the medically interesting radionuclides ^{76}Br and ^{77}Br. Appl Radiat Isot 60:899–909. EXFOR: D0164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 220.Janssen AGM, Bosch RLP, de Goiej JJM, Theelen HMJ (1980) The reactions ^{77}Se(p, n) and ^{78}Se(p,2n) as production routes for ^{77}Br. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 31:405–409. EXFOR: A0255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 221.Spahn I, Steyn GF, Vermeulen C, Kovács Z, Szelecsényi F, Coenen HH, Qaim SM (2009) New cross section measurements for production of the positron emitters ^{75}Br and ^{76}Br via intermediate energy proton induced reactions. Radiochim Acta 97:535–541. EXFOR: D0568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 222.Alfassi ZB, Weinreich R (1982) The production of positron emitters ^{75}Br and ^{76}Br: Excitation functions and yields for ^{3}He and αparticle induced nuclear reactions on arsenic. Radiochim Acta 30:67–71. EXFOR: A0232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 223.Hermanne A, Sonck M, Van Hoyweghen J, Terriere D, Mertens J (1994) Optimisation of radiobromine production from Asbased targets through cross section determination. In: International conference on nuclear data for science and technology, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, USA, p 1039Google Scholar
 224.Breunig K, Spahn I, Hermanne A, Spellerberg S, Scholten B, Coenen HH (2017) Cross section measurements of ^{75}As(α, xn)^{76,77,78}Br and ^{75}As(α, x)^{74}As nuclear reactions using the monitor radionuclides ^{67}Ga and ^{66}Ga for beam evaluation. Radiochim Acta 105:431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 225.Horiguchi T, Noma H, Yoshizawa Y, Takemi H, Hasai H, Kiso Y (1980) Excitation functions of proton induced nuclear reactions on ^{85}Rb. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 31:141–151. EXFOR: B0111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 226.Deptula C, Khalkin VA, Kim SH, Knotek O, Konov VA, Mikecz P, Poponenkova LM, Rurarz E, Zaitseva NG (1990) Excitation functions and yields for medically generator Sr^{82}–Rb^{82}, Xe^{123}–I^{123} and Bi^{201}–Pb^{201}–Tl^{201} obtained with 100 MeV protons. Nukleonika 35:3–47. EXFOR: O0306Google Scholar
 227.LagunasSolar MC (1992) Radionuclide production with > 70MeV proton accelerators: current and future prospects. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 69:452–462. EXFOR: C0780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 228.Gilabert E, Lavielle B, Neumann S, Gloris M, Michel R, Schiekel Th, Sudbrock F, Herpers U (1998) Cross sections for the protoninduced production of krypton isotopes from Rb, Sr, Y, and Zr for energies up to 1600 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 145:293–319. EXFOR: O0505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 229.Ido T, Hermanne A, Ditrói F, Szǔcs Z, Mahunka I, Tárkányi F (2002) Excitation functions of proton induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Rb from 30 to 70 MeV. Implication for the production of ^{82}Sr and other medically important Rb and Sr radioisotopes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B194:369–388. EXFOR: D4114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 230.Kastleiner S, Qaim SM, Nortier FM, Blessing G, van der Walt TN, Coenen HH (2002) Excitation functions of ^{85}Rb(p,xn)^{85m,g,83,82,81}Sr reactions up to 100 MeV: integral tests of cross section data,comparison of production routes of ^{83}Sr and thick target yield of ^{82}Sr. Appl Radiat Isot 56:685–695. EXFOR: D4127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 231.Kovács Z, Tárkányi F, Qaim SM, Stocklin G (1991) Excitation functions for the formation of some radioisotopes of rubidium in proton induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Kr, ^{82}Kr and ^{83}Kr with special reference to the production of ^{81}Rb(^{81m}Kr) generator radionuclide. Appl Radiat Isot 42:329–335. EXFOR: A0489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 232.Steyn GF, Mills SJ, Nortier FM, Haasbroek FJ (1991) Integral excitation functions for (nat)Kr + p up to 116 MeV and optimization of the production of ^{81}Rb for ^{81m}Kr generators. Appl Radiat Isot 42:361–370. EXFOR: A0499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 233.Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Doczi R, Hermanne A, Ignatyuk AV (2012) Study of excitation function of deuteron induced reactions on ^{nat}Kr up to 20 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 70:574–582. EXFOR: D4262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 234.DelaunayOlkowsky J, Strohal P, Cindro N (1963) Total reaction cross section of proton induced reactions. Nucl Phys 47:266–272. EXFOR: O2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 235.Rösch F, Qaim SM, Stocklin G (1993) Nuclear data relevant to the production of the positron emitting radioisotope ^{86}Y via the ^{86}Sr(p, n) and ^{nat}Rb(^{3}He, xn)processes. Radiochim Acta 61:1–8. EXFOR: D4030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 236.Sachdev DR, Porile NT, Yaffe L (1967) Reactions of ^{88}Sr with protons of energies 7–85 MeV. Can J Chem 45:1149–1160. EXFOR: B0069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 237.Iwata SJ (1962) Isomeric cross section ratios in alphaparticle reactions. J Phys Soc Jpn 17:1323–1333. EXFOR: P0064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 238.Demeyer A, Chevarier N, Chevarier A, Tran MD (1971) Reculs moyens, rapports isomeriques et fonctions d`excitation pour les reactions induites par des particules alpha sur le rubidium. J de Physique 32:583–593. EXFOR: O2038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 239.Guin R, Das SK, Saha SK (2000) Crosssections and linear momentum transfer in αinduced reactions on ^{85}Rb. Radiochim Acta 88:435–438. EXFOR: A0111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 240.Agarwal A, Bhardwaj MK, Rizvi IA, Chaubey AK (2003) Measurement and analysis of excitation function for alpha induced reactions with rubidium. Indian J Pure Appl Phys 41:829–832. EXFOR: D0122Google Scholar
 241.Albert RD (1959) (p, n) cross section and proton opticalmodel parameters in the 4 to 5.5 MeV energy region. Phys Rev 115:925–927. EXFOR: T01300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 242.Saha GB, Porile NT, Yaffe L (1966) (p, xn) and (p, pxn) reactions of yttrium89 with 5–85MeV protons. Phys Rev 144:962–971. EXFOR: T0195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 243.Johnson CH, Kernell RL, Ramavataram S (1968) The ^{89}Y(p, n)^{89}Zr cross section near the first two analogue resonances. Nucl Phys A 107:21–34. EXFOR: C0774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 244.Birattari C, Gadioli E, Gadioli Erba E, Grassi Strini AM, Strini G, Tagliaferri G (1973) Preequilibrium processes in (p, n) reactions. Nucl Phys A 201:579–592. EXFOR: B0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 245.Mustafa MG, West HI Jr, O’Brien H, Lanier RG, Benhamou M, Tamura T (1988) Measurements and a directreaction—plus—HauserFeshbach analysis of ^{89}Y(p, n)^{89}Zr,^{89}Y(p,2n)^{88}Zr, and ^{89}Y(p, pn)^{88}Y reactions up to 40 MeV. Phys Rev C 38:1624–1637. EXFOR: A0403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 246.Wenrong Zhao, Shen Qingbiao Lu, Weixiang Hanlin, Yu (1992) Investigation of ^{89}Y(p, n)^{89}Zr,^{89}Y(p,2n)^{88}Zr and ^{89}Y(p, pn)^{88}Y reactions up to 22 MeV. Chin J Nucl Phys (Beijing) 14:7. EXFOR: S0040Google Scholar
 247.Uddin MS, Hagiwara M, Baba M, Tárkányi F, Ditrói F (2005) Experimental studies on excitation functions of the protoninduced activation reactions on yttrium. Appl Radiat Isot 63:367–374. EXFOR: E1934PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 248.Omara HM, Hassan KF, Kandil SA, Hegazy FE, Saleh ZA (2009) Proton induced reactions on ^{89}Y with particular reference to the production of the medically interesting radionuclide ^{89}Zr. Radiochim Acta 97:467–471. EXFOR: D0584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 249.Steyn GF, Vermeulen C, Szelecsényi F, Kovács Z, Suzuki K, Fukumura T, Nagatsu K (2011) Excitation functions of proton induced reactions on ^{89}Y and ^{93}Nb with emphasis on the production of selected radiozirconiums. J. Korean Phys. Soc. 59:1991–1994. EXFOR: D0629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 250.Satheesh B, Musthafa MM, Singh BP, Prasad R (2011) Nuclear isomers ^{90m,g}Zr, ^{89m,g}Y and ^{85m,g}Sr formed by bombardment of ^{89}Y with proton beams of energies from 4 to 40 MeV. Int J Mod Phys E 20:2119–2132. EXFOR: D6178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 251.Khandaker MU, Kim K, Lee MW, Kim KS, Kim G, Otuka N (2012) Investigations of ^{89}Y(p, x)^{86,88,89g}Zr, ^{86m+g,87g,87m,88g}Y, ^{85g}Sr, and ^{84g}Rb nuclear processes up to 42 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 271:72–81. EXFOR: D0675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 252.Baron N, Cohen BL (1963) Activation crosssection survey of deuteroninduced reactions. Phys Rev 129:2636–2642. EXFOR: D4059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 253.La Gamma AM, Nassiff SJ (1973) Excitation functions for deuteroninduced reactions on ^{89}Y. Radiochim Acta 19:161–162. EXFOR: F0843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 254.Bissem HH, Georgi R, Scobel W, Ernst J, Kaba M, Rama Rao J, Strohe H (1980) Entrance and exit channel phenomena in d and ^{3}Heinduced preequilibrium decay. Phys Rev C 22:1468–1484. EXFOR: A0347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 255.Degering D, Unterricker S, Stolz W (1988) Excitation function of the ^{89}Y(d,2n)^{89}Zr reaction. J Radioanal Nucl Chem Lett 127:7–11. EXFOR: O1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 256.West HI, Brien HO, Lanier RG, Nagle RJ, Mustafa MG (1993) Measurements of the excitation functions of the isobaric chain ^{87}Y, ^{87m}Y, ^{87g}Y, and ^{87m}Sr. Some excitation functions of proton and deuteron induced reactions on ^{89}Y. University of California Lawrence Radiation Laboratory report, vol 5, no.115738, p 1. EXFOR: C1159Google Scholar
 257.Uddin MS, Baba M, Hagiwara M, Tárkányi F, Ditrói F (2007) Experimental determination of deuteroninduced activation cross sections of yttrium. Radiochim Acta 95:187–192. EXFOR: E2051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 258.Lebeda O, Štursa J, Ráliš J (2015) Experimental crosssections of deuteroninduced reaction on ^{89}Y up to 20 MeV; comparison of ^{nat}Ti(d, x)48 V and ^{27}Al(d, x)^{24}Na monitor reactions. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 360:118–128. EXFOR: D0777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 259.Ditrói F, Takács S, Tárkányi F, Baba M, Corniani E, Shubin YuN (2008) Study of proton induced reactions on niobium targets up to 70 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 266:5087–5100. EXFOR: D4212 #1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 260.Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Corniani E, Takács S, Tárkányi F, Csikái J, Shubin YuN (2009) Investigation of proton induced reactions on niobium at low and medium energies. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 267:3364–3374. EXFOR: D4228 #1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 261.Titarenko YE, Batyaev VF, Titarenko AY, Butko MA, Pavlov KV, Florya SN, Tikhonov RS, Zhivun VM, Ignatyuk AV, Mashnik SG, Leray S, Boudard A, Cugnon J, Mancusi D, Yariv Y, Nishihara K, Matsuda N, Kumawat H, Mank G, Gudowski W (2011) Measurement and simulation of the cross sections for nuclide production in Nb93 and Ninat targets irradiated with 0.04 to 2.6GeV protons. Yadernaya Fizika 74:561–573. EXFOR: A0906Google Scholar
 262.Kim GN (2016) Unpublished information (private communication)Google Scholar
 263.Smend F, Weirauch W, SchmidtOtt WD, Flammersfeld A (1967) Wirkungsquerschnitte und Isomerenverhaltnis fur die Reaktionen 89Y(α,3n)90gNb und 89Y(α,3n)90mNb. Z Phys 207:28–34. EXFOR: O1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 264.Mukherjee S, Kumar BB, Rashid MH, Chintalapudi SN (1997) αparticle induced reactions on yttrium and terbium. Phys Rev C 55:2556–2562. EXFOR: O1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 265.Chaubey AK, Rizvi IA (1999) Nonequilibrium effects in alpha induced reactions in some natural elements. Indian J Pure Appl Phys 37:791–793. EXFOR: D6217Google Scholar
 266.Singh NL, Gadkari MS, Chintalapudi SN (2000) Measurement and analysis of alpha particle induced reactions on yttrium. Phys Scr 61:550–554. EXFOR: D0067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 267.Shahid M, Kim K, Naik H, Zaman M, Kim G, Yang SC, Song TY (2015) Measurement of excitation functions in alphainduced reactions on yttrium. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 342:158–165. EXFOR: D7014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 268.Graf HP, Münzel H (1974) Excitation functions for αparticle reactions with molybdenum isotopes. J Inorg Nucl Chem 36:3647–3657. EXFOR: B0040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 269.Denzler FO, Rosch F, Qaim SM (1995) Excitation functions of αparticle induced nuclear reactions on highly enriched ^{92}Mo: comparative evaluation of production routes for ^{94m}Tc. Radiochim Acta 68:13–20. EXFOR: D4016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 270.Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Ignatyuk AV (2012) Investigation of the αparticle induced nuclear reactions on natural molybdenum. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 285:125–141. EXFOR: D4269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 271.Skakun EA, Batij VG, Rakivnenko YuN, Rastrepin OA (1987) Excitation functions and isomer ratios for upto9MeV proton interactions with Zr and Mo isotope nuclei. Yad Fiz 46:28–39. EXFOR: A0338Google Scholar
 272.Rosch F, Qaim SM (1993) Nuclear data relevant to the production of the positron emitting technetium isotope ^{94m}Tc via the ^{94}Mo(p, n)reaction. Radiochim Acta 62:115–121. EXFOR: D4021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 273.Zhuravlev Y, Zarubin PP, Kolozhvari AA (1994) Excitation functions of (p,n) reaction on the Mo isotope nuclei in the energy interval from thresholds to 7.2 MeV. Izv. Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk Ser Fiz 58:106. EXFOR: A0575Google Scholar
 274.Lebeda O, Pruszynski M (2010) New measurement of excitation functions for (p,x) reactions on ^{nat}Mo with special regard to the formation of ^{95m}Tc, ^{96m+g}Tc, ^{99m}Tc and ^{99}Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 68:2355–2365. EXFOR: D0615PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
 275.Cervenák J, Lebeda O (2016) Experimental crosssections for protoninduced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Mo. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 380:32–49. EXFOR: D0805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 276.Nortier FM, Mills SJ, Steyn GF (1990) Excitation functions and production rates of relevance to the production of ^{111}In by proton bombardment of ^{nat}Cd and ^{nat}In up to 100 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 41:1201–1208. EXFOR: A0500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 277.Lundqvist H, ScottRobson S, Einarsson L, Maimborg P (1991) ^{110}Sn/^{l10}In—a new generator system for positron emission tomography. Appl Radiat Isot 42:447–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 278.Tárkányi F, Takács S, Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Baba M, Mohsena BMA, Ignatyuk AV (2015) New cross section data and review of production routes of medically used ^{110m}In. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 351:6–15. EXFOR: D4327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 279.Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Takács S, Baba M (2016) Investigation of activation cross sections of proton induced reactions on indium up to 70 MeV for practical applications. Appl Radiat Isot 107:391–400. EXFOR: D4333PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
 280.Hermanne A, Daraban L, AdamRebeles R, Ignatyuk A, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2010) Alpha induced reactions on ^{nat}Cd up to 38.5 MeV Experimental and theoretical studies of the excitation function. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B268:1376–1391. EXFOR: D4231001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 281.Khandaker MU, Kim K, Lee MW, Kim GN (2014) Investigation of activation crosssections of alphainduced nuclear reactions on natural cadmium. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 333:80–91. EXFOR: D7018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 282.Duchemin C, Essayan M, Guertin A, Haddad F, Michel N, Metivier V (2016) How to produce high specific activity tin117m using alpha particle beam. Appl Radiat Isot 115:113–124. EXFOR: O2314PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
 283.Ditrói F, Takács S, Haba H, Komori Y, Aikawa M (2016) Cross section measurement of alpha particle induced nuclear reactions on natural cadmium up to 52 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 118:266–276. EXFOR: D4359PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
 284.Otozai K, Kume S, Mito A, Okamura H, Tsujino R, Kanchiku Y, Katoh T, Gotoh H (1966) Excitation functions for the reactions induced by protons on Cd up to 37 MeV. Nucl. Phys. 80:335–348. EXFOR: P0019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 285.Skakun EA, Kljucharev AP, Rakivnenko YN, Romanij A (1975) Excitation functions of (p,n) and (p,2n)reactions on cadmium isotopes. Izv Akademii Nauk SSSR Ser Fiz 39:24–30. EXFOR: A0001Google Scholar
 286.Kormali SM, Swindle DL, Schweikert EA (1976) Charged particle activation of medium Zelements. II. Proton excitation functions. J Radioanal Chem 31:437–450. EXFOR: D4073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 287.Tárkányi F, Király B, Ditrói F, Takács S, Csikái J, Hermanne A, Uddin MS, Hagiwara M, Baba M, Ido T, Shubin YuN, Kovalev SF (2006) Activation crosssections on cadmium: proton induced nuclear reactions up to 80 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 245:379–394. EXFOR: D4170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 288.AlSaleh FS (2008) Cross sections of proton induced nuclear reactions on natural cadmium leading to the formation of radionuclides of indium. Radiochim Acta 96:461–465. EXFOR: D0467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 289.Khandaker MU, Kim K, Lee MW, Kim KS, Kim GN, Cho YS, Lee YO (2008) Production crosssections for the residual radionuclides from the ^{nat}Cd(p, x) nuclear processes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 266:4877–4887. EXFOR: D0516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 290.Usher OH, Maceiras E, Saravi MC, Nassiff SJ (1977) Production cross section and isomeric ratios for the isomeric pair In110m/In110g formed in Cd(d, xn) reactions. Radiochim Acta 24:55–57. EXFOR: D4064001Google Scholar
 291.Tárkányi F, Király B, Ditrói F, Takács S, Csikái J, Hermanne A, Uddin MS, Hagiwara M, Baba M, Ido T, Shubin YuN, Kovalev SF (2007) Activation cross sections on cadmium: Deuteron induced nuclear reactions up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 259:817–828. EXFOR: D4179001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 292.Mukhammedov S, Pardayev E (1958) The excitation functions of (d,2n) type nuclear reactions on the isotopes of cadmium and lead. Izv Akad Nauk Uzb SSR Ser FizMat 5:81. EXFOR: D0727Google Scholar
 293.Fukushima S, Hayashi S, Kume S, Okamura H, Otozai K, Sakamoto K, Yoshizawa Y (1963) Excitation functions for the reactions induced by alpha particles on^{107}Ag. Nucl Phys 41:275–290. EXFOR: E1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 294.Misaelides P, Münzel H (1980) Excitation functions for ^{3}He and αinduced reactions with ^{107}Ag and ^{109}Ag. J Inorg Nucl Chem 42:937–948. EXFOR: A0319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 295.Wasilevsky C, De la Vega Vedoya M, Nassiff SJ (1985) Isomer yield ratios and cross sections for ^{110}In(4.9 h)/^{110}In(69 min) and ^{108}In(58 min)/^{108}In(39.6 min) produced by alpha reactions on silver. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 95:29–44. EXFOR: A0314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 296.Chaubey AK, Bhardwaj MK, Gautam RP, Singh RKY, Afzal Ansari M, Rizvi IA, Singh H (1990) Preequilibrium decay process in the alpha induced reactions of silver isotopes. Appl Radiat Isot 41:401–405. EXFOR: D6208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 297.Patel HB, Gadkari MS, Dave B, Singh NL, Mukherjee S (1996) Analysis of the excitation function of alphaparticleinduced reactions on natural silver. Can J Phys 74:618–625. EXFOR: D0065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 298.Takács S, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Ignatyuk A (2010) Crosssections for alpha particle produced radionuclides on natural silver. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 268:2–12. EXFOR: D4217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 299.Yalçin C, Gyurky G, Rauscher T, Kiss GG, Őzkan N, Güray RT, Halasz Z, Szǔcs T, Fülöp Z, Farkas J, Korkulu Z, Somorjai E (2015) Test of statistical model cross section calculations for αinduced reactions on ^{107}Ag at energies of astrophysical interest. Phys Rev C 91:034610. EXFOR: D4328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 300.AdamRebeles R, Hermanne A, Takács S, Tárkányi F, Kovalev SF, Ignatyuk A (2007) Alpha induced reactions on ^{nat}Sn: An experimental study of excitation functions and possible production pathways. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 260:672–684. EXFOR: D4189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 301.Filipescu D, Avrigeanu V, Glodariu T, Mihai C, Bucurescu D, Ivascu M, CataDanil I, Stroe L, Sima O, CataDanil G, Deleanu D, Ghita DG, Marginean N, Marginean R, Negret A, Pascu S, Sava T, Suliman G, Zamfir NV (2011) Cross sections for αparticle induced reactions on ^{115,116}Sn around the Coulomb barrier. Phys Rev C 83:064609. EXFOR: D0652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 302.Batij VG, Baskova KA, Kuz`menko VA, Makuni BM, Rastrepin OA, Skakun EA, Chugaj TV, Shavtvalov LJ (1984) Excitation functions of ^{116,117}Sn(α,xn) reactions in the energy range under 30 MeV. IN: 34th Conference nuclear spectroscopy and nuclear structure. AlmaAta, USSR, p 355. EXFOR: A0217Google Scholar
 303.Yi JH, Miller DA (1992) Cross section of natSb(p, x) reactions for 30–46 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 43:1103–1106. EXFOR: C0092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 304.LagunasSolar MC, Haff RP, Carvacho OF, Yang ST, Yano Y (1990) Cyclotron production of PET radionuclides: 118Sb (3.5 min; beta + 75%; EC 25%) from highenergy protons on natural Sb targets. Appl Radiat Isot 41:521–529. EXFOR: C0094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 305.Takács S, Takács MP, Hermanne A, Tarkányi F, AdamRebeles R (2013) Cross sections of proton induced reactions on ^{nat}Sb. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 297:44–57. EXFOR: D4279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 306.Takács S, Takács MP, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, AdamRebeles R (2012) Cross sections of deuteroninduced reactions on ^{nat}Sb up to 50 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 278:93–105. EXFOR: D4265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 307.Hohn A, Coenen HH, Qaim SM (1998) Nuclear data relevant to the production of ^{120g}I via the ^{120}Te(p, n)process at a smallsized cyclotron. Appl Radiat Isot 49:1493–1496. EXFOR: D4121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 308.ElAzony K, Suzuki K, Fukumura T, Szelecsényi F, Kovács Z (2008) Proton induced reactions on natural tellurium up to 63 MeV: data validation and investigation of possibility of ^{124}I production. Radiochim Acta 96:763–769. EXFOR: D0502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 309.Güray RT, Őzkan N, Yalçin C, Palumbo A, deBoer R, Görres J, Leblanc PJ, O’Brien S, Strandberg E, Tan WP, Wiescher M, Fülöp Z, Somorjai E, Lee HY, Greene JP (2009) Measurements of protoninduced reaction cross sections on ^{120}Te for the astrophysical p process. Phys Rev C 80:035804. EXFOR: C1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 310.Ahmed AM, Hassan HE, Hassan KF, Khalaf AM, Saleh ZA (2011) Cross sections for the formation of radioiodines in proton bombardment of natural tellurium with particular reference to the validation of data for the production of ^{123}I. Radiochim Acta 99:317–323. EXFOR: D0647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 311.Tárkányi F, Qaim SM, Stocklin G, Sajjad M, Lambrecht RM (1991) Nuclear reaction cross sections relevant to the production of the ^{122}Xe → ^{122}I generator system using highly enriched ^{124}Xe and a mediumsized cyclotron. Appl Radiat Isot 42:229–233. EXFOR: A0487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 312.Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S, AdamRebeles R, Ignatyuk A, Spellerberg S, Schweikert R (2011) Limitation of the longlived ^{121}Te contaminant in production of ^{123}I through the ^{124}Xe(p,x) route. Appl Radiat Isot 69:358–368. EXFOR: D4238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 313.Diksic M, Yaffe L (1977) A study of ^{127}I(p,xn) and ^{127}I(p,pxn) reactions with special emphasis on production of ^{123}Xe. J Inorg Nucl Chem 39:1299–1302. EXFOR: B0081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 314.Lundqvist H, Malmborg P, Langstrom B, Suparb Na Chiengmai (1979) Simple production of ^{77}Br and ^{123}I and their use in the labelling of [^{77}Br]BrUdR and [^{123}I]IUdR. Appl Radiat Isot 30:39–43. EXFOR: D0116 #1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 315.LagunasSolar MC, Carvacho OF, Liu BoLi, Jin Y, Sun Zhao Xiang (1986) Cyclotron production of highpurity ^{123}I. A revision of excitation functions, thintarget and cumulative yields for ^{127}I(p,xn) reactions. Appl Radiat Isot 37:823–833. EXFOR: A0363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 316.Weinreich R, Schult O, Stocklin G (1974) Production of ^{123}I via the ^{123}Xe(β + , EC)^{123}I process. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 25:535–543. EXFOR: B0143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 317.Husson JP, Legoux Y, Liang CF (1978) Study of the rate of formation of shortlived iodine and xenon isotopes at the synchrocyclotron of Orsay for use in medicine. Inst Phys Nucl Orsay 27(78):1–11. EXFOR: A0345Google Scholar
 318.Fink RW, Wiig EO (1954) Reactions of cesium with protons at 60, 80, 100, 150, and 240 MeV. Phys Rev 96:185–187. EXFOR: C2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 319.LagunasSolar MC, Little FE, Moore HA Jr. (1982) Cyclotron production of ^{128}Cs (3.62 min). A new positronemitting radionuclide for medical applications. Appl. Radiat. Isot 33:619–628. EXFOR: A0320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 320.Deptula C, Kim SH, Knotek O, Mikolajewski S, Popinenkova LM, Rurarz E, Zaitseva NG (1990) Production of ^{128,131}Ba, ^{132}Cs in proton induced reactions on a Cs target and of ^{127,129}Cs in 3,4He induced reactions on I target. Nukleonika 35:63–77. EXFOR: A0572Google Scholar
 321.Tárkányi F, Hermanne A, Takács S, Ditrói F, Király B, Yamazaki H, Baba M, Mohammadi A, Ignatyuk AV (2010) New measurements and evaluation of excitation functions for (p, xn), (p, pxn) and (p,2pxn) reactions on ^{133}Cs up to 70 MeV proton energy. Appl Radiat Isot 68:47–58. EXFOR: D4226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 322.Hogan JJ (1971) Study of the ^{141}Pr(p, xn) reaction from 10–85 MeV. J Inorg Nucl Chem 33:3627–3641. EXFOR: C0321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 323.Zeisler S, Becker D (1999) Production of the ^{140}Nd: ^{140}Pr radionuclide generator for biomedical studies. Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals 42(Suppl. 1):S921–923 (abstracts from 13th Int. Symp. Radiopharm. Chem., 27 June–1 July 1999, St. Louis, Missouri, USA)Google Scholar
 324.Hilgers K, Shubin YuN, Coenen HH, Qaim SM (2005) Experimental measurements and nuclear model calculations on the excitation functions of ^{nat}Ce(^{3}He, xn) and ^{141}Pr(p, xn) reactions with special reference to production of the therapeutic radionuclide ^{140}Nd. Radiochim Acta 93:553–560. EXFOR: O1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 325.Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Ditrói F, Baba M, Ohtshuki T, Spahn I, Ignatyuk AV (2009) Excitation functions for production of medically relevant radioisotopes in deuteron irradiations of Pr and Tm targets. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 267:727–736. EXFOR: D4209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 326.Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Ditrói F (2016) Extension of excitation functions up to 50 MeV for activation products in deuteron irradiations of Pr and Tm targets. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 383:81–88. EXFOR: D4355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 327.Nichols AL, Qaim SM, Capote Noy R (2011) Summary report of a technical meeting on intermediateterm nuclear data needs for medical applications: cross sections and decay data, 22–26 August 2011. IAEA Headquarters, IAEA report INDC(NDS)0596, September 2011, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: https://wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0596.pdf
 328.Qaim SM (2017) Nuclear data for production and medical application of radionuclides: present status and future needs. Nucl Med Biol 44:31–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 329.Capote Noy R, Nichols AL (2008) Summary report of a consultants’ meeting on highprecision betaintensity measurements and evaluations for specific PET radioisotopes, 3–5 September 2008. IAEA Headquarters, IAEA report INDC(NDS)0535, December 2008, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0535.pdf
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.