Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 319, Issue 2, pp 487–531 | Cite as

Recommended nuclear data for medical radioisotope production: diagnostic gamma emitters

  • F. T. Tárkányi
  • A. V. Ignatyuk
  • A. Hermanne
  • R. CapoteEmail author
  • B. V. Carlson
  • J. W. Engle
  • M. A. Kellett
  • T. Kibedi
  • G. N. Kim
  • F. G. Kondev
  • M. Hussain
  • O. Lebeda
  • A. Luca
  • Y. Nagai
  • H. Naik
  • A. L. Nichols
  • F. M. Nortier
  • S. V. Suryanarayana
  • S. Takács
  • M. Verpelli
Open Access
Article

Abstract

An extensive series of evaluations have been performed as part of an IAEA coordinated research project to study a set of nuclear reactions that produce the diagnostic gamma-ray emitting radionuclides 51Cr, 99mTc, 111In, 123I and 201Tl. Recommended cross-section data in the form of excitation functions have been derived, along with quantifications of their uncertainties. These evaluations involved the compilation of all previously published values and newly measured experimental data, followed by critical assessments and selection of those experimental datasets and accompanying uncertainties judged to be fully valid and statistically consistent for model-independent least-squares fitting by means of Padé approximations. Integral yields as a function of the energy were also calculated on the basis of the recommended cross sections deduced from these various fits. All evaluated numerical results and their corresponding uncertainties are available online at www-nds.iaea.org/medical/gamma_emitters.html and also on the medical portal of the International Atomic Energy Agency/Nuclear Data Section (IAEA-NDS) www-nds.iaea.org/medportal/.

Keywords

IAEA Coordinated Research Project Diagnostic medical isotopes γ-ray emitters Cross-section evaluation Uncertainty estimation Padé fit Recommended σ- and yield data 

Introduction

The production of diagnostic and therapeutic radionuclides for medical applications is a very important non-energy related application of nuclear science and technology [1]. Such radionuclides are produced in both neutron and charged-particle induced nuclear reactions, and the list of these reactions used for the generation of diagnostic radioisotopes (gamma-ray emitters for SPECT and β+ emitters for PET imaging) and employed to monitor these preparative procedures is long. Dedicated compilations and evaluations of production cross-section data for such medical radionuclides were started over 20 years ago in a Coordinated Research Project (CRP) initiated and supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) [2]. This first concerted effort was identified with nuclear reactions used to produce widely used diagnostic radionuclides for SPECT and PET imaging (twenty-six reactions to generate 11C, 13N, 15O, 18F, 67Ga, 68Ge/68Ga, 81Rb, 82Sr, 111In, 123I, 123Cs/123Xe/123I and 201Pb/201Tl), and a selection of twenty-two reactions used to monitor beam parameters during the irradiations. All results were published in IAEA-TECDOC-1211 [3], made available within the medical portal of the IAEA Nuclear Data Section [4], and were subsequently updated in 2003 and 2004 [5, 6]. Both methods of presentation contain recommended cross-section data and the corresponding deduced yields. A second IAEA CRP was launched in 2003 to cover the production routes for established (103Pd, 186Re and 192Ir) and emerging therapeutic radionuclides (64Cu, 67Cu, 67Ga, 86Y, 111In, 114mIn, 124I, 125I, 169Yb, 177Lu, 211At and 225Ac) totalling thirty-five reactions [7].

According to citations and the number of data downloads, the IAEA-CRP cross-section databases have been extensively used at radionuclide production facilities worldwide. Furthermore, over recent years, new emerging radioisotopes have appeared and additional experimental data have been published on the previously evaluated reactions for medical applications and beam monitoring, along with studies of new applications of various other emerging radionuclides. Therefore, a third IAEA coordinated research project was launched in 2012, with the following primary aims [8]:
  1. (a)

    Re-evaluate those reactions for which important new data have been reported,

     
  2. (b)

    Extend the list of potential radionuclides and their recommended excitation functions for medical applications,

     
  3. (c)

    Determine uncertainties in the recommended cross-section data deduced from Padé fits on statistically consistent and critically selected datasets, and

     
  4. (d)

    Re-evaluate unreliable relevant decay data.

     

Sixteen laboratories and institutions from around the world collaborated in the project for which a fair number of specific re-evaluations required additional cross-section and decay-data measurements, and these new experimental datasets were published elsewhere on a regular basis. All cross-section data were also re-assessed and evaluated with the goal of producing recommended data with quantified uncertainties.

The physical yield (instantaneous production rate), activity generated during one hour irradiation with 1 μA beam current, and saturation yield defined in terms of an infinite irradiation were calculated from the recommended cross-section data. Results for direct and cumulative production routes, mono-isotopic and enriched targets, and targets of naturally-occurring isotopic compositions were considered. As agreed at subsequent research coordination meetings [8], a set of four papers are in preparation to deal individually with the production routes for γ-emitting diagnostic radionuclides [SPECT imaging, lead author F. T. Tárkányi (this report)], β+ emitters and generators (PET imaging, lead author F. T. Tárkányi), therapeutic radionuclides (lead author J.W. Engle), and re-evaluated decay data (lead author A.L. Nichols). One additional paper on beam monitor reactions (lead author A. Hermanne) had already been published at the time of this submission [9].

The goal of this work is to report new model-independent cross-section evaluations with uncertainties derived by least-squares fits of statistically consistent experimental data. These evaluated data can be used to derive the physical yield for radionuclide production, and also aid in constraining calculations based upon nuclear reaction models.

The excitation functions for twenty-one charged-particle induced reactions have been assessed on the basis of their compilation, evaluation and a well-recognised data fitting procedure. These studies have involved the formation of five specific SPECT radionuclides selected for study in this CRP [8]: 51Cr, 99Mo/99mTc, 111In, 123I and 201Tl. Several other reactions were also considered for the formation of 99Mo induced by photon and neutron beams to assess the production of the extremely important 99Mo/99mTc generator. Our recent studies of various different routes for the selected radioisotopes are each discussed on an individual basis. After a short description of the decay data adopted for radionuclidic quantification and the medical applications for these radionuclides, the individual results for each production route are given, including figures that show (a) all compiled datasets, and (b) selected statistically consistent datasets (with experimental total uncertainties) along with the recommended fitted curve and uncertainty of the fit. Final figures for each dataset compare the integral physical yields for the medically relevant radionuclide that are based on the present recommended data for each route.

All evaluated cross sections and their uncertainties are available online at the IAEA Nuclear Data Section Web site www-nds.iaea.org/medical/gamma_emitters.html and also at the IAEA medical portal www-nds.iaea.org/medportal/. These Web pages include details of the evaluations, and the numerical data considered and adopted for analyses to generate the evaluated cross sections with their uncertainties and the corresponding production yields.

Evaluation, fitting and uncertainty estimates

All available literature sources containing relevant experimental data were used in the compilation process (primary journals, reports, conference abstracts and proceedings, yield compilations, reference databases, nuclear reaction databases such as EXFOR and NSR, PhD theses, etc.). Analyses and selection of the published experimental yields were based on detailed assessments of the measurement procedures including the determination of the particle energy, composition and nature of the target material, intensity of the beam, chemical separation processes, quantifying capabilities of measurement technique, nuclear data adopted, proper definition of the yield, and finally the aims of individual measurements and particularly attempts made to obtain precise values. Whenever needed and possible, known changes were introduced to adopted calibrant values (decay data and/or experimental parameters), as well as correcting conversion and computational errors. The compiled experimental data were also compared with the results of theoretical calculations based on the TALYS code system, and taken from the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 libraries [10].

Corrected experimental data that exhibited large disagreements with the other datasets, unusual shapes, systematic energy shifts, and data significantly below the reaction threshold were rejected from the fitting procedure whereby a fully and statistically consistent dataset was established. Originally reported experimental uncertainties were considered when determining the variable uncertainties in the recommended consistent dataset. However, no proper quantified descriptions of the uncertainties are given in many publications, or the adopted measurements technique(s) imply that the quoted uncertainties had been significantly underestimated and merit correction to avoid excessive weight within the subsequent fitting process. This initiative has involved compilers who possess significant experience in experimental cross-section studies, which allows them to estimate the full functionality and accuracy of the experiments under consideration (i.e., sound subjective judgments can be made with respect to accelerator systems and laboratory facilities, identification of researchers with proven experience, and degree of technical application on production machines).

By and large, most contemporary evaluation procedures are based on various manifestations of the least-squares method (e.g., see review [11] and references therein). The least-squares method is the state-of-art Bayesian approach that combines all available knowledge to derive the evaluated result and corresponding uncertainties. Evaluations undertaken in this paper are in most cases model-independent evaluations free from potential model defects and deficiencies. However, such an approach implies that comprehensive and consistent experimental inputs should be available before the least-square fit is undertaken. When the status of the experimental data is appropriate, a purely statistical fit over the selected data points can be performed.

Often, least-square fits use analytical functions, the most prominent being polynomials or the ratio of two polynomials. An analytical approximation based on the ratio of two polynomials was proposed by Padé over 125 years ago [12], and has become one of the most important interpolation techniques of statistical mathematics [13, 14]. As a rational function, the Padé approximant can be expressed by a set of polynomial coefficients, or by a set of coefficients of the pole expansion
$$ p_{L} (z) = c + \sum\limits_{l} {\tfrac{{a_{l} }}{{z - \eta_{l} }} + \sum\limits_{k} {\frac{{\alpha_{k} (z - \varepsilon_{k} ) + \beta_{k} }}{{(z - \varepsilon_{k} )^{2} + \gamma_{{_{k} }}^{2} }}} } , $$
(1)
where z = x + iy is a complex variable and L is an order of the polynomial presentation of the Padé approximant [15]. This equation is also called the resonance expansion, in which εk and γk are the energy and the total half-width of the k-th resonance, while αk and βk are the partial widths and interference parameters. The first sum corresponds to the real poles, while the second sum relates to the complex poles.
Effective codes for practical applications of the Padé approximation were developed by the Obninsk group [15]. The simplest version of these codes permits analyses of up to 500 experimental points with the number of parameters L ≤ 40 and a ratio limit of analysed experimental data points fj up to max(fj)/min(fj) ≤ 106. A more detailed description of the method can be found in Refs. [15, 16], and some important questions of application are discussed in Refs. [17, 18]. The Padé approximation is also very convenient for calculations of the data uncertainties and the corresponding covariance matrices because the fitting procedure involves minimisation of the least-square deviation functional
$$ \chi^{2} = (N - L)^{ - 1} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N} {\left( {p_{L} (x_{j} ) - f_{j} } \right)^{2} /\sigma_{j}^{2} } , $$
(2)
where fj are the available experimental data, σj are their uncertainties and N is the number of analysed points. Such minimisation is carried out by iterations using the discrete optimisation approach. The minimal least-square deviation for a given L is computed using Eq. (2) by looking through a possible choice of L points from the available N points and the construction of corresponding approximants given by Eq. (1). Once this process has been completed, L is changed and the iteration is repeated until an overall minimum is found from all discrete possibilities available. Some additional features of this method of analysis are discussed in our recent paper on evaluated beam-monitor reactions [9].

Along with a consistent consideration of the statistical uncertainties of the experimental data, the Padé method allows (a) determination of some systematic uncertainties in the data that are usually underestimated by their authors and (b) establishment of some implicit correlations of the data. The averaged deviation of the experimental data from the approximating function is regarded as the systematic uncertainty for each reaction, while the deviations of the experimental points from the approximant are regarded as the statistical uncertainties. An optimal description of all data is achieved by the traditional iteration procedure of minimising the mean-squares deviations with respect to these statistical and systematic uncertainties. Whenever required and possible, we have attempted to correct the published experimental data and introduce realistic uncertainties, although the resulting fitting procedures still indicated that the systematic uncertainties of the experimental studies were being underestimated. Often the different experimental datasets for a given reaction show large systematic disagreements, without any obvious explanation. One reason could be that commercially-purchased target thicknesses were not always checked by independent measurement which might result in erroneous estimations of the number of target nuclei. Another explanation is that experimental data are frequently measured relative to beam-monitor reactions, but the monitoring technique is not properly applied: the incident energy is not checked, or possible deviations are not considered; and the complete excitation function of the monitor reactions is not simultaneously re-measured. Another issue is that the recommended cross-section data of the monitor reactions may change over the years, resulting in difficulties in establishing which monitor data were used in older publications. A further problem that cannot be addressed involves outdated decay data that do not linearly contribute to the cross-section dataset (i.e., half-life), because the timescales of the irradiation and the measuring process are not fully documented in the original publication.

Not all of the selected datasets are totally independent, but possess a certain degree of correlation. A significant number of the datasets were obtained by means of the stacked-foil irradiation technique in which the number of particles interacting with each foil is supposed to be constant and can be determined by application of the recommended beam-monitoring data. Several studies involved the generation of datasets obtained from different experiments in which the samples were measured with the same detectors operated at the same efficiency and source-to-detector distances. These correlations and the various correction factors are difficult to take into account in the evaluation, such that components of the systematic uncertainties are only partially considered. Therefore, an additional 4% systematic uncertainty was added to the experimental statistical uncertainties to obtain reasonable and realistic estimates of the evaluated uncertainties on the recommended excitation functions and their production yields.

Summary of the results from previous IAEA evaluations of cross sections for the production of diagnostic gamma emitters

The nuclear reactions for production of SPECT radionuclides evaluated as part of an earlier IAEA coordinated research project are summarised in Table 1. Results of the evaluations were initially presented in Ref. [3], and updated on the IAEA-NDS Web page [4], including plots of all the relevant experimental excitation functions and derived physical yields based upon the approach adopted in Refs. [5, 6]. All recommended cross-section data were based on Padé or spline fitting, as were the integral production yields as a function of beam energy. A full list of references and reasons for their rejection/selection for the fitting procedure were also provided. However, no uncertainties were provided within this first work package of recommended excitation functions.
Table 1

Earlier evaluated nuclear reactions for the production of diagnostic SPECT radionuclides (IAEA-TECDOC-1211 and IAEA nuclear database 2004 [3, 4], with the adopted decay data listed and taken from NuDat [19])—number of quoted digits for each quantity reflects the evaluated uncertainty

Reaction

Radionuclide

Half-life

Decay (%)

Eγ (keV), Pγ (%)

Product

Half-life

Decay (%), Eγ (keV), Pγ (%)

Production route

68Zn(p,2n)67Ga

67Zn(p,n)67Ga

67Ga

3.2617 d

EC 100

93.310, 38.81;

184.576, 21.410;

300.217, 16.64

   

Direct

natKr(p,x)81Rb

82Kr(p,2n)81Rb

81mKr

13.10 s

IT 99.9975

EC 0.0025

190.46, 67.66

81Rb

4.572 h

EC/β+ 100, β+27.2

190.46, 64.9; 446.15, 23.5

Parent

111Cd(p,n)111In

112Cd(p,2n)111In

111In

2.8047 d

EC 100

171.28, 90.7;

245.35, 94.1

   

Direct

124Xe(p,2n)123Cs

123I

13.2235 h

EC 100

158.97, 83.3

123Cs

5.88 min

EC/β+ 100, β+72

97.39, 22.7; 596.6, 10.1

Grandparent

124Xe(p,pn)123Xe

124Xe(p,x)123Xe

127I(p,5n)123Xe

123I

13.2235 h

EC 100

158.97, 83.3

123Xe

2.08 h

EC/β+ 100, β+22.6

148.9, 48.9; 178.1, 14.9

Parent

127I(p,3n)125Xe

125I

59.407 d

EC 100

27.202, 39.6 (X Kα2);

27.472, 73.1 (X Kα1)

125Xe

16.9 h

EC/β+ 100, β+0.300

188.418, 53.8; 243.378, 30.0

Impurity, parent

123Te(p,n)123I

124Te(p,2n)123I

123I

13.2235 h

EC 100

158.97, 83.3

   

Direct

124Te(p,n)124I

124I

4.1760 d

EC/β+ 100, β+22.7

602.73, 62.9;

722.78, 10.36;

1690.96, 11.15

   

Impurity, β+ emitter

203Tl(p,3n)201Pb

201Tl

3.0421 d

EC 100

167.43, 10.00

201Pb

9.33 h

EC/β+ 100, β+0.064

331.15, 77; 361.25, 9.5; 584.60, 3.6; 692.41, 4.3

Parent

203Tl(p,4n)200Pb

200Tl

26.1 h

EC/β+ 100, β+0.401

367.942, 87;

579.300, 13.7

200Pb

21.5 h

EC 100

147.63, 38.2; 257.19, 4.52

Impurity, parent

203Tl(p,2n)202mPb

202Tl

12.31 d

EC 100

439.510, 91.5

202mPb

3.54 h

IT 90.5, EC 9.5

422.12, 84; 657.49, 31.7; 786.99, 49; 960.70, 89.9

Impurity, parent

Decay data used in the original cross-section evaluations were updated to the latest recommended values available from NuDat [19], as listed in Table 1.

Further evaluations of cross sections for the production of diagnostic gamma emitters

Overview of reactions studied

The list of SPECT radionuclides studied in this most recent coordinated research project has been extended to consider various production routes for widely used 99mTc and 51Cr. New experimental data measurements since 2004 for production of 123I, 111In and 201Tl have been included in this current series of evaluations based upon the development of suitable lists of possible production reactions. Due to the considerable importance of 99mTc and parent 99Mo in medical applications, consideration has also been given to a number of different production routes including charged-particle irradiations, neutron-induced reactions, and photon beams.

The various production reactions and the decay data of the medical radionuclides as taken from NuDat are listed in Table 2 [19], along with the degree of the adopted Padé polynomial fit.
Table 2

Decay data [19] and production routes of medical radionuclides under investigation—number of quoted digits for each quantity reflects the evaluated uncertainty

Radionuclide

Half-life

Decay (%)

Eγ (keV), Pγ (%)

Reaction

Product half-life

Decay (%)

Eγ (keV), Pγ (%)

Fit

Production route

Charged-particle induced reactions

51Cr

27.704 d

EC 100

320.0824, 9.910

51V(p,n)51Cr

  

Padé 12

Direct

51V(d,2n)51Cr

  

Padé 12

Direct

55Mn(p,x)51Cr

  

Padé 13

Cumulative

55Mn(d,x)51Cr

  

Padé 4

Cumulative

natFe(p,x)51Cr

  

Padé 21

Cumulative

natTi(α,x)51Cr

  

Padé 11

Cumulative

99mTc

6.0072 h

IT 99.9963

β 0.0037 

140.511, 89

100Mo(p,x)99Mo

65.924 h

β 100

Padé 23

Parent

100Mo(d,x)99Mo

 

181.068, 6.05; 739.500, 12.20

Padé 6

Parent

100Mo(p,2n)99mTc

  

Padé 15

Direct

 

100Mo(d,3n)99mTc

  

Padé 6

Direct

111In

2.8047 d

EC 100

171.28, 90.7;

245.35, 94.1

112Cd(p,2n)111In

  

Padé 9

Direct

123I

13.2235 h

EC 100

158.97, 83.3

124Xe(p,pn)123Xe

2.08 h

EC/β+ 100, β+22.6

148.9, 48.9; 178.1, 14.9

Padé 13

Parent

124Xe(p,2n)123Cs

5.88 min

EC/β+ 100, β+72

97.39, 22.7; 596.6, 10.1

Padé 13

Grandparent

124Xe(p,x)123Xe

2.08 h

EC/β+ 100, β+22.6

148.9, 48.9; 178.1, 14.9

Padé 16

Parent

124Xe(p,x)121I

2.12 h

EC/β+ 100, β+10.6

212.20, 84.3; 532.08, 6.1

Padé 18

Impurity

201Tl

3.0421 d

EC 100

167.43, 10.00

203Tl(p,3n)201Pb

9.33 h

EC/β+ 100, β+0.064

331.15, 77; 361.25, 9.5;

584.60, 3.6; 692.41, 4.3

Padé 13

Parent

203Tl(p,4n)200Pb

21.5 h

EC 100

147.63, 38.2; 257.19, 4.52

Padé 5

Impurity

203Tl(p,2n)202mPb

3.54 h

IT 90.5, EC 9.5

422.12, 84; 657.49, 31.7;

786.99, 49; 960.70, 89.9

Padé 9

Impurity

Photon- and neutron-induced reactions

99mTc

6.0072 h

β 0.0037,

140.511, 89

100Mo(γ,n)99Mo

65.924 h

β 100

Padé 9

Parent

IT 99.9963

238U(γ,f)99Mo

 

181.068, 6.05; 739.500, 12.20

Padé 17

Parent

98Mo(n,γ)99Mo

  

BROND-3.1 (75-group)

Parent

100Mo(n,2n)99Mo

  

Padé 19

Parent

Presentation of results

Every evaluation undertaken and the results for each reaction are illustrated in two figures that display the following: first figure depicts all available experimental data without their uncertainties, followed by a second figure that contains only the selected data with their experimental uncertainties and the Padé fit that defines the recommended cross sections with uncertainties expressed as percentages (uncertainty scale is on the right-hand side of the figure along the y-axis). Predicted cross-section values are also shown for comparison, as taken from the TENDL 2015 and TENDL 2017 libraries that are based on the TALYS code [10]. References for each reaction are reported separately in chronological order but have only been listed once in the reference list. Selection of appropriate and consistent datasets relies on many parameters for which the main reasons for rejection include the following:
  • Systematic energy shift towards lower or higher energy,

  • Significantly higher and lower values, or unusual shape when compared with the main body of data or theory,

  • Cross-section data below the threshold, and

  • Relatively high degree of scattered data.

Almost in all cases, the data points within an individual reference were considered in this manner as a fundamental part of the selection/rejection process. Only in a few cases mainly involving significant outliers close to the threshold were individual data points omitted to improve the possibility of a proper fit. Original proton data published by Levkovskij were all corrected for the erroneous values of the 96mTc beam monitor. The factor used is described in detail with reference to new measurements and earlier discussions within Section II.K of the latest evaluation of monitor reactions [9].

Integral physical yields for the different production reactions of each radionuclide of specific or indirect medical interest are calculated from the recommended data, and are shown in separate figures at the end of each subsection.

Charged-particle induced reactions

Reactions for the production of 51Cr (T 1/2 = 27.701 d)

Applications rather long-lived 51Cr is used to label red blood cells, and quantify gastro-intestinal protein loss and glomerular filtration rate (especially in paediatrics).

Evaluations have been made of the 51V(p,n)51Cr, 51V(d,2n)51Cr, 55Mn(p,x)51Cr, 55Mn(d,x)51Cr, natFe(p,x)51Cr, and natTi(α,x)51Cr reactions.

51V(p,n)51Cr

The thirty-two experimental datasets available in the literature for the generation of 51Cr from 51V targets are shown in Fig. 1 [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49] (at 99.75% natural abundance of 51V in natV, irradiations on natural V are considered to express the cross section for interactions on 51V). Refs. [36, 41] contain two datasets each labelled as (a) and (b) in Fig. 1. All of the data in Fig. 1 are also compared with equivalent TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Ten datasets were rejected (Tanaka and Furukawa [22] (values too low), Albouy et al. [24] (values too high), Hontzeas and Yaffe [28] (energy shift), Chodil et al. [33] (values too high), Mehta et al. (a) [36] (energy shift above 10 MeV), Stück [40] (data in energy range not included in fit), Kailas et al. (b) [41] (energy shift), Michel et al. [42] (data in energy range not included in fit), Bastos et al. [43] (values too high), and Musthafa et al. [47] (values too low)), and the remaining twenty-two sets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 2 together with the Padé fit (L = 12, N = 500, χ2 = 1.57) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 1

Thirty-two experimental datasets for the 51V(p,n)51Cr reaction available in the literature [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49], and the TENDL calculations. Both Refs. [36, 41] contain two datasets labelled (a) and (b)

Fig. 2

Twenty-two selected experimental datasets for the natV(p,x)51Cr reaction [20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36(b), 37, 38, 39, 41(a), 44, 45, 46, 48, 49] with the Padé fit (L = 12, N = 500, χ2 = 1.57) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

51V(d,2n)51Cr

Six experimental datasets were found in the literature and all of them were judged as suitable for Padé fitting [44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54]. All data are shown in Fig. 3, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. These datasets and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 4 together with the Padé fit (L = 12, N = 151, χ2 = 0.68) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 3

Six experimental datasets for the 51V(d,2n)51Cr reaction available in the literature [44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 4

Six experimental datasets for the 51V(d,2n)51Cr reaction [44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54] with the Padé fit (L = 12, N = 151, χ2 = 0.68) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

55Mn(p,x)51Cr

Six experimental datasets were found in the literature for the production of 51Cr by means of a monoisotopic 55Mn target, and all of them were judged as suitable for Padé fitting [38, 40, 45, 55, 56, 57]. All data are shown in Fig. 5, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Direct production occurs by means of the (p,2p3n) reaction (or clustered emission) and decay contributions of simultaneously formed 51Fe and 51Mn short-lived parents. These datasets and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 6 together with the Padé fit (L = 13, N = 94, χ2 = 1.75) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 5

Six experimental datasets for the 55Mn(p,x)51Cr reaction available in the literature [38, 40, 45, 55, 56, 57], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 6

Six experimental datasets for the 55Mn(p,x)51Cr reaction [38, 40, 45, 55, 56, 57] with the Padé fit (L = 13, N = 94, χ2 = 1.75) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

55Mn(d,x)51Cr

Only one experimental study was found for the cumulative deuteron-induced formation of 51Cr via a 55Mn target [58] (direct and decay of short-lived parents). This single dataset and experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7 together with TENDL calculations, along with the Padé fit (L = 4, N = 5, χ2 = 0.54) with estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 7

Single experimental dataset for the 55Mn(d,x)51Cr reaction [58] with TENDL calculations, and the Padé fit (L = 4, N = 5, χ2 = 0.54) with estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

natFe(p,x)51Cr

Sixteen experimental datasets were found in the literature for the cumulative formation of 51Cr on natural Fe targets [37, 38, 40, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70]. All data are shown in Fig. 8, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Six datasets were rejected [Rayudu [59] (single data point too low), Williams and Fulmer [60] (values too low), Brodzinski et al. [61] (single data point too low), Walton et al. [62] (values too high), Schoen et al. [63] (values too low), and Barchuk et al. [64] (discrepant at low energy)], and the remaining ten sets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9 together with the Padé fit (L = 21, N = 100, χ2 = 0.85) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 8

Sixteen experimental datasets for the natFe(p,x)51Cr reaction available in the literature [37, 38, 40, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 9

Ten selected experimental datasets for the natFe(p,x)51Cr reaction [37, 38, 40, 55, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70] with the Padé fit (L = 21, N = 100, χ2 = 0.85) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

natTi(α,x)51Cr

Sixteen experimental datasets were found in the literature [45, 50, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83]. Hermanne et al. [78] contained two datasets that have been labelled (a) and (b). All data are shown in Fig. 10, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Eight datasets were rejected [Levkovskij [45] (energy shift), Weinreich et al. [50] (energy shift), Iguchi et al. [71] (energy shift), Chang et al. [73] (values too low, and strange shape), Michel et al. [74] (energy shift), Tárkányi et al. [76] (energy shift), Xiufeng Peng et al. [77] (values too low), and Hermanne et al. (b) [78] (values too low)], and the remaining eight sets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 11 together with the Padé fit (L = 11, N = 242, χ2 = 1.50) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right scale). This reaction is also used as a monitor reaction for α-beams, and is discussed further in Section V.C. of Hermanne et al. [9].
Fig. 10

Sixteen experimental data datasets for the natTi(α,x)51Cr reaction available in the literature [45, 50, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 11

Eight selected experimental data for the natTi(α,x)51Cr reaction [72, 75, 78(a), 79, 80, 81, 82, 83] with the Padé fit (L = 11, N = 242, χ2 = 1.50) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

Integral yields for 51Cr formation

Integral yields for the six production routes of 51Cr were calculated on the basis of the fits in Figs. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 11, as presented in Fig. 12. Commercially available production accelerators (30-MeV protons) define the (p,n) reaction on natural vanadium targets (containing 99.75% 51V) as the method of choice. The advantages of higher yield through adoption of the (d,2n) reaction above 25-MeV incident particle energy can only be exploited by a limited number of research centres.
Fig. 12

Yields calculated from the recommended cross sections for the 51V(p,n), 51V(d,2n)51Cr, 55Mn(p,x)51Cr, 55Mn(d,x)51Cr, natFe(p,x)51Cr and natTi(α,x)51Cr reactions

Reactions for the production of 99mTc (T1/2 = 6.0072 h)

Applications99mTc is most commonly used to image the skeleton and heart muscle. Also has been applied to the brain, thyroid, lungs (perfusion and ventilation), liver, spleen, kidney (structure and filtration rate), gall bladder, bone marrow, salivary and lachrymal glands, heart blood pool, infection and many other specialised medical studies.

99mTc is the γ-emitting workhorse of diagnostic nuclear medicine (constitutes more than 70% of imaging procedures performed worldwide). Commercially distributed in the form of 99Mo/99mTc generators whereby all 99Mo is obtained from the fission of 235U within thermal research reactors (99Mo T1/2 = 65.924 h). Uncertainty in the sustainability of the supply chain caused by unexpected or progressive shutdown of aged research reactors has triggered a search for alternative reactions to be performed in accelerator systems. Significant attention has been devoted to both charged-particle induced reactions by means of particle accelerators and photon-induced reactions by means of electron linear accelerators (linac).

Production routes under investigation

Various production routes have been fully assessed and evaluated:
  • Indirect production via the 99Mo/99mTc generator based on the 100Mo(p,x)99Mo and 100Mo(d,x)99Mo charged-particle reactions (see below); 100Mo(n,2n)99Mo and 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo radiative neutron capture in reactors, and photon-induced reactions by means of linacs 100Mo(γ,n)99Mo and 238U(γ,f)99Mo (all four of these routes are analysed and discussed in the subsection entitled “99mTc and parent 99Mo: photon-induced and neutron-induced reactions”).

  • Direct production by means of the 100Mo(p,2n)99mTc and 100Mo(d,3n)99mTc reactions (see below).

100Mo(p,x)99Mo

Fourteen experimental datasets were found in the literature [45, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96]. All data are shown in Fig. 13, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Five datasets were rejected [Lagunas-Solar et al. [84] (values too low), Scholten et al. [85] (values too low), Uddin et al. [87] (values too low), Khandaker et al. [88] (values too low at higher energy), and Alharbi et al. [90] (slight energy shift)], and the remaining nine sets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 14 together with the Padé fit (L = 23, N = 153, χ2 = 1.73) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 13

Fourteen experimental datasets for the 100Mo(p,x)99Mo reaction available in the literature [45, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 14

Nine selected experimental datasets for the 100Mo(p,x)99Mo reaction [45, 86, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96] with the Padé fit (L = 23, N = 153, χ2 = 1.73) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

100Mo(d,x)99Mo

Relevant experimental data for the 100Mo(d,x)99Mo reaction are shown in Fig. 15 [91, 97, 98, 99, 100], and are compared with the corresponding TENDL calculations. Only two highly specific datasets exist [97, 99] and under such limited circumstances, three other sets of experimental data measured on natMo and normalised to the abundance of 100Mo are also included in Fig. 15 [91, 98, 100]. All normalised data obtained with natMo targets include a significant contribution from the 98Mo(d,p)99Mo reaction at a lower threshold, and therefore the excitation function for these three references are seen to exhibit abnormal behaviour at lower beam energies. Nevertheless, the data measured on natMo support the 100Mo(d,x)99Mo data at energies above 30 MeV whereby the contribution of the 98Mo(d,p)99Mo reaction is small.
Fig. 15

Five experimental datasets for the 100Mo(d,x)99Mo reaction available in the literature [91, 97, 98, 99, 100], and the TENDL calculations

The two datasets obtained with 100Mo targets and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 16 [97, 99] together with the Padé fit (L = 6, N = 70, χ2 = 1.23) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 16

Two selected experimental datasets for the 100Mo(d,x)99Mo reaction [97, 99] with the Padé fit (L = 6, N = 70, χ2 = 1.23) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

100Mo(p,2n)99mTc

Sixteen experimental datasets were found in the literature [45, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 101, 102]. Ref. [92] contains three sets of data labelled (a), (b) and (c). All data are shown in Fig. 17, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Ten datasets were rejected [Lagunas-Solar et al. [84] (energy shift, and values too high), Lagunas-Solar et al. [101] (values too high), Scholten et al. [85] (scattered, and values too low), Khandaker et al. [102] (values too low), Khandaker et al. [88] (energy shift, and values too low), Alharbi et al. [90] (values too low), Gagnon et al. (a, b, c) [92] (values too high in all three sets of data), and Manenti et al. [94] (values too high)], while the remaining six sets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. The selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 18 together with the Padé fit (L = 15, N = 197, χ2 = 2.11) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 17

Sixteen experimental datasets for the 100Mo(p,2n)99mTc reaction available in the literature [45, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 101, 102], and the TENDL calculations. Ref. [92] contains three datasets labelled (a), (b) and (c)

Fig. 18

Six selected experimental datasets for the 100Mo(p,2n)99mTc reaction [45, 86, 89, 93, 95, 96] with the Padé fit (L = 15, N = 197, χ2 = 2.11) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

100Mo(d,3n)99mTc

Only one experimental dataset has been determined with highly-enriched 100Mo target material [99], and therefore three other sets of normalised data measured on natMo have also been included in Fig. 19 as a guide [98, 99, 100, 103]. All data are also compared with the equivalent TENDL calculations. While these three additional datasets contain a significant contribution from the 98Mo(d,n)99mTc reaction at low particle-beam energies, such impact is close to being negligible around the maximum of the 100Mo(d,3n)99mTc reaction. All three datasets determined with natMo targets support the single set of data measured with highly-enriched 100Mo. The Padé fit shown in Fig. 20 is based only on the data of Ref. [99] and associated experimental uncertainties (L = 6, N = 33, χ2 = 0.88) with estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 19

Four experimental datasets for the 100Mo(d,3n)99mTc reaction available in the literature [98, 99, 100, 103], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 20

Single experimental dataset for the 100Mo(d,3n)99mTc reaction [99] with the Padé fit (L = 6, N = 33, χ2 = 0.88) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

Integral yields for 99Mo and 99mTc formation using proton/deuteron accelerators

Integral yields for the production routes of 99Mo and 99mTc are shown in Figs. 21 and 22, respectively, as calculated on the basis of the fits in Figs. 14, 16, 18 and 20. Only the direct 100Mo(p,2n)99mTc reaction on highly-enriched 100Mo targets could be an alternative route of production for dedicated and commercially available accelerators (30-MeV protons). Indirect production by means of higher-energy deuteron reactions could increase the yield by a factor of three through adoption of the 100Mo(d,x) 99Mo route, and allow the continued use of parent-based generator systems. However, both direct and indirect charge-particle routes cannot compete economically with fission based 99Mo production as long as heavily subsidised research reactors are available.1
Fig. 21

Yields calculated from the recommended cross sections for the 100Mo(p,x)99Mo and 100Mo(d,x)99Mo reactions

Fig. 22

Yields calculated from the recommended cross sections for the 100Mo(p,2n)99mTc and 100Mo(d,3n)99mTc reactions

Reaction for the production of 111In (T1/2 = 2.8047 d)

Applications111In is used for specialist diagnostic studies, such as the brain, colon transit, and infection. Also has been identified as a suitable candidate for radiotherapy.

112Cd(p,2n)111In

Nine experimental datasets were found in the literature for the 112Cd(p,2n)111In reaction [104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112]. All data are shown in Fig. 23, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Only one dataset was rejected (Nieckarz and Caretto [105] (single data point above the chosen energy range of the fit)), and the remaining eight sets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected datasets and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 24 together with the Padé fit (L = 9, N = 100, χ2 = 1.46) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 23

Nine experimental datasets for the 112Cd(p,2n)111In reaction available in the literature [104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 24

Eight selected experimental datasets for the 112Cd(p,2n)111In reaction [104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112] with the Padé fit (L = 9, N = 100, χ2 = 1.46) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

Integral yield for 111In formation

Integral yield for the 112Cd(p,2n)111In reaction is shown in Fig. 25—used at present as a standard production route for commercially available 30-MeV cyclotrons.
Fig. 25

Yields calculated from the recommended cross sections for the 112Cd(p,2n)111In reaction

Reactions for the production of 123I (T1/2 = 13.2235 h)

Applications123I is a standard radionuclide in the diagnosis of thyroid function and studies of the cardiac and nervous system. Complementary imaging has also been performed in conjunction with the emerging 124I β+ emitter, and for radiotherapy in conjunction with 131I β emitter.

Production routes for 123I that employ tellurium and 124Xe targets were evaluated as part of an earlier CRP [2, 3]. Following on from these studies, re-evaluations have been made of a selection of nuclear reactions related to the production of 123I precursors by proton-induced reactions on 124Xe targets: 124Xe(p,2n)123Cs, 124Xe(p,pn)123Xe, and 124Xe(p,x)123Xe. Furthermore, an assessment has also been made of the formation of 121I impurity by means of the 124Xe(p,x)121I reaction which limits the shelf-life of 123I.

124Xe(p,2n)123Cs

Three experimental datasets were found in the literature for the 124Xe(p,2n)123Cs reaction [113, 114, 115] that were all used in the statistical fitting procedure. All data are shown in Fig. 26, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. These data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 27 together with the Padé fit (L = 13, N = 71, χ2 = 0.67) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 26

Three experimental datasets for the 124Xe(p,2n)123Cs reaction available in the literature [113, 114, 115], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 27

Three experimental datasets for the 124Xe(p,2n)123Cs reaction [113, 114, 115] with the Padé fit (L = 13, N = 71, χ2 = 0.67) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

124Xe(p,pn)123Xe

Three experimental datasets were found in the literature for the direct 124Xe(p,pn)123Xe reaction (Fig. 28) [113, 114, 115]. All data are shown in Fig. 28, and are compared with TENDL-2015 and TENDL = 2017 calculations. The dataset of Tárkányi et al. [114] was rejected (values too low), and the remaining two sets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 29 together with the Padé fit (L = 13, N = 43, χ2 = 1.16) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 28

Three experimental datasets for the 124Xe(p,pn)123Xe reaction available in the literature [113, 114, 115], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 29

Two selected experimental datasets for the 124Xe(p,pn)123Xe reaction [113, 115] with the Padé fit (L = 13, N = 43, χ2 = 1.16) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

124Xe(p,x)123Xe

Three experimental datasets were found in the literature for this means of cumulative formation, including the decay of short-lived 123Xe parent [113, 114, 115]. All data are shown in Fig. 30, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. The dataset of Tárkányi et al. [114] was rejected (values too low), and the remaining two sets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 31 together with the Padé fit (L = 16, N = 44, χ2 = 1.00) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 30

Three experimental datasets for the 124Xe(p,x)123Xe reaction available in the literature [113, 114, 115], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 31

Two selected experimental datasets for the 124Xe(p,x)123Xe reaction [113, 115] with the Padé fit (L = 16, N = 44, χ2 = 1.00) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

124Xe(p,x)121I (reaction for generation of 121I impurity)

Unavoidable contamination of 123I by 121I (T1/2 = 2.12 h, daughter product of co-produced 121Cs-121Xe that decays to long-lived 121Te) by means of the reaction processes discussed above limits the shelf-life of batches of 123I [115].

Two datasets were found in the literature [114, 115]. All data are shown in Fig. 32, and are compared with TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Both sets of data and their experimental uncertainties were used in the statistical fitting procedure as shown in Fig. 33 together with the Padé fit (L = 18, N = 24, χ2 = 1.21) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 32

Two experimental datasets for the 124Xe(p,x)121I reaction available in the literature [114, 115], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 33

Two experimental datasets for the 124Xe(p,x)121I reaction [114, 115] with the Padé fit (L = 18, N = 24, χ2 = 1.21) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

Integral yields for 123Cs–123Xe (grandparent and parent of 123I) and 121I impurity formation

Integral yields related to the production of 123I deduced from the fits in Figs. 27, 29, 31 and 33 are shown in Figs. 34, 35 and 36.
Fig. 34

Yields calculated from the recommended cross sections for the 124Xe(p,2n)123Cs reaction

Fig. 35

Yields calculated from the recommended cross sections for the 124Xe(p,pn)123Xe and 124Xe(p,x)123Xe reactions

Fig. 36

Yields calculated from the recommended cross sections for the 124Xe(p,x)121I reaction

Reactions for the production of 201Tl (T1/2 = 3.0421 d)

Applications201Tl has been used for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarct and heart muscle death, and to locate low-grade lymphomas.

Present commercial production is through the EC/β+ decay of parent 201Pb obtained by means of the 203Tl(p,3n)201Pb reaction (adoption of 95% enriched 203Tl targets) and double Tl–Pb separation chemistry. Quantitative knowledge of the unavoidable and simultaneous production of 200Pb and 202mPb via the 203Tl(p,4n)200Pb and 203Tl(p,2n)202mPb reactions is important from the point of view of radionuclidic purity (limits defined in pharmacopoeia).

203Tl(p,3n)201Pb

Eleven experimental datasets were found in the literature that exhibit contradictory results [116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124]. Both Refs. [121, 124] contain two datasets labelled as (a) and (b). All data are shown in Fig. 37, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Five datasets were rejected [Sakai et al. [116] (energy shift), Lebowitz et al. [117] (values too low), Blue et al. [119] (values too low), Qaim et al. [120] (values too low), and Bonardi et al. (b) [121] (values too low)], while the remaining six datasets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 38 together with the Padé fit (L = 13, N = 178, χ2 = 1.67) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 37

Eleven experimental datasets for the 203Tl(p,3n)201Pb reaction available in the literature [116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124], and the TENDL calculations. Both Refs. [121, 124] contain two datasets denoted as (a) and (b)

Fig. 38

Six selected experimental datasets for the 203Tl(p,3n)201Pb reaction [118, 121(a), 122, 123, 124(a) and (b)] with the Padé fit (L = 13, N = 178, χ2 = 1.67) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

203Tl(p,4n)200Pb (impurity reaction)

Seven experimental datasets were found in the literature [116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124]. All data are shown in Fig. 39, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Only one dataset was rejected [Sakai et al. [116] (discrepant values)], while the remaining six datasets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 40 together with the Padé fit (L = 5, N = 124, χ2 = 2.01) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 39

Seven experimental datasets for the 203Tl(p,4n)200Pb reaction available in the literature [116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 40

Six selected experimental datasets for the 203Tl(p,4n)200Pb reaction [118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124] with the Padé fit (L = 5, N = 124, χ2 = 2.01) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

203Tl(p,2n)202mPb (impurity reaction)

Six experimental datasets were found in the literature [118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124]. All data are shown in Fig. 41, and are compared with the TENDL-2015 and TENDL-2017 calculations. Three datasets were rejected [Lagunas-Solar et al. [118], Bonardi et al. [121], and Al-Saleh et al. [123] (all values too low)], and the remaining three datasets were used in the statistical fitting procedure. These selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 42 together with the Padé fit (L = 9, N = 18, χ2 = 1.87) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 41

Six experimental datasets for the 203Tl(p,2n)202mPb reaction available in the literature [118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124], and the TENDL calculations

Fig. 42

Three selected experimental datasets for the 203Tl(p,2n)202mPb reaction [120, 122, 124] with the Padé fit (L = 9, N = 18, χ2 = 1.87) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

Integral yields for 201Tl formation

Integral yields of reactions related to the production of 201Tl and deduced from the data fittings in Figs. 38, 40 and 42 are shown in Fig. 43.
Fig. 43

Yields calculated from the recommended cross sections for the 203Tl(p,3n)201Pb, 203Tl(p,4n)200Pb and 203Tl(p,2n)202mPb reactions

99mTc and parent 99Mo: photon-induced and neutron-induced reactions

Consideration was given to various non-charged-particle reactions for the production of parent 99Mo to generate 99mTc, which involved the irradiation of particular molybdenum targets with photons or neutrons as well as the 238U(γ,f) reaction.

100Mo(γ,n)99Mo

Only three experimental datasets were found in the literature, and are shown in Fig. 44 [125, 126, 127]. These datasets have also been compared with recent evaluations contained within the TENDL-2017 [10] and ENDF/B-VII.1 [128] libraries. Measurements by Ejiri et al. [126] at a gamma-ray energy of approximately 14.5 MeV were performed with bremsstrahlung spectrum, and such conditions differ significantly from the other two studies carried out with monoenergetic gamma rays [125, 127]. Both sets of selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 45 [125, 127] together with the Padé fit (L = 9, N = 55, χ2 = 1.84) and estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 44

Three experimental datasets for the 100Mo(γ,n)99Mo reaction available in the literature [125, 126, 127], compared with evaluations in the TENDL-2017 and ENDF/B-VII.1 libraries

Fig. 45

Two selected experimental datasets for the 100Mo(γ,n)99Mo reaction [125, 127] with the Padé fit (L = 9, N = 55, χ2 = 1.84) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

98Mo(n,γ)99Mo

Twenty-seven experimental datasets were found in the literature [129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155], and are shown in Fig. 46 together with the TENDL-2017 evaluation. Seven sets of these data relate to cross-section measurements for thermal neutrons [129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135], and individual data points coincide within their ranges of uncertainties (assigned the same symbol in Fig. 46 because of their overlap). Another group of nine data points at a beam energy of approximately 25 keV relates to measurements in which Po-Be neutron sources were used [132, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143], and they are also denoted by a common symbol because of their significant overlap. A set of seven data points measured by Weston et al. [145] over neutron energies from 2 to 100 keV were corrected (corr.) in accord with changes in the monitor reaction cross sections, although only some of them are visible within Fig. 46 owing to the surrounding high density of data.
Fig. 46

Experimental datasets for the 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo reaction available in the literature [129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155], and the 75-group evaluation of TENDL-2017 [10]

Neutron cross sections at low energies possess resonance structure, an example of which is shown in Fig. 46 at an energy of ~ 12 eV as observed in a neutron capture experiment [146]. The number of resonances increases significantly with increasing energy, particularly over the neutron energy interval up to 10 keV as measured by Musgrove et al. [150]. Group representations of overlapping resonances in the form of averaged cross sections are usually adopted in such circumstances, and the TENDL-2017 definition of this particular neutron-capture cross section is shown in Fig. 46 as a 75-group assembly [10]. This TENDL-2017 evaluation below 100 keV coincides closely with the ENDF/B-VII.1 [128], JEFF-3.2 [156], JENDL-4.0 [157], and BROND-3.1 [158] national and international neutron data libraries, whereby the same resonance parameters have often been used [159].

Reference [146] data were only adopted for neutron energies above 3 keV on the basis of their reasonable agreement with the high-resolution data. Eight datasets were rejected because they contradict the main trends of all other data [136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 148]. A thermal neutron cross section of (130 ± 6) mb was adopted, as recommended by Mughabghab [159] on the basis of a consistent analysis of the experimental data and the resonance parameters. This value is also well supported by epithermal neutron data [155].

All selected datasets are shown in Fig. 47 together with the BROND-3.1 evaluation [158]: BROND-3.1 and TENDL-2017 differ only in the energy region above 100 keV. Both sets of statistical model calculations are important for a consistent description of the abrupt decrease of the capture cross section immediately above the threshold for neutron inelastic scattering (~ 787 keV for 98Mo).
Fig. 47

Selected experimental datasets for the 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo reaction compared with BROND-3.1 calculations and evaluation, and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

Complete consideration of the complex resonance structure of the evaluated data is not required to estimate the uncertainties of the recommended cross sections. Sufficient information can normally be gleaned from the uncertainties of the multi-group cross sections to achieve this objective. Such an approach is described in detail in Ref. [158], and these estimated uncertainties for the 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo reaction are shown in Fig. 47 (right-hand scale).

100Mo(n,2n)99Mo

Twenty-five experimental datasets were found in the literature [160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182]. Ikeda et al. [177] contains three versions of the data measured on the basis of different beam-monitor reactions, and these are labelled (a), (b) and (c). All of these data are shown in Fig. 48 together with TENDL-2017 evaluation except for the two 14-MeV data points of Refs. [160, 161] which exceed essentially all other equivalent data. Results of Ref. [174] have been corrected (corr.) in accord with the current changes in the monitor reaction cross sections, while Ref. [182] constitutes similar adjustments of previous publications performed by the original author. Eight further datasets were rejected [162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 170, 176, 179] as contradictory to the mean value of all other data around 14 MeV. The remaining fifteen sets were used in the fitting procedure—these selected data and their experimental uncertainties are shown in Fig. 49 together with the Padé fit (L = 19, N = 69, χ2 = 0.84) and estimated percentage uncertainties, including 4% of the systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 48

Twenty-three experimental datasets for the 100Mo(n,2n)99Mo reaction available in the literature [162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182], and the TENDL-2017 evaluation. Ikeda et al. [177] contains three versions of the data measured on the basis of different beam-monitor reactions, and these are labelled (a), (b) and (c)

Fig. 49

Fifteen selected experimental datasets for the 100Mo(n,2n)99Mo reaction with the Padé fit (L = 19, N = 69, χ2 = 0.84) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

238U(γ,f)99Mo

While there are no directly measured experimental data for the 238U(γ,f)99Mo reaction, thirteen experimental datasets were found in the literature for the total photofission cross section [183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195], as shown in Fig. 50. Symbols below a gamma-ray energy of 8 MeV overlap so severely that some data points are rather difficult to resolve. Data were only compiled and assessed for gamma-ray energies below 30 MeV that are important for medical applications. These data are also compared in Fig. 50 with the Varlamov-Peskov (2007) evaluation which is widely considered as optimal for the photofission cross section of 238U [196].
Fig. 50

Experimental datasets for the 238U(γ,f) reaction available in the literature [183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195], and the Varlamov-Peskov (2007) evaluation [196]

Three datasets were rejected [183, 184, 186] because of their disagreement with all other equivalent data. Data points from both Ref. [191] above 10 MeV and Ref. [192] below 14 MeV were also omitted for the same reason. The Padé fit of all remaining data is shown in Fig. 51 (L = 17, N = 283, χ2 = 3.36) together with the estimated uncertainties as percentages, including 4% systematic uncertainty (right-hand scale).
Fig. 51

Selected experimental datasets for the 238U(γ,f) reaction with the Padé fit (L = 17, N = 283, χ2 = 3.36) and estimated uncertainties as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

Data for the neutron-induced reaction on 238U are most frequently used to estimate the cumulative photofission yield of 99Mo. Such data are available in all of the national and international data libraries, but their accuracy is not high. The following cumulative yields are given for a neutron energy range between 1.0 and 2.0 MeV:
  • (6.17 ± 0.86)% in the ENDF/B-VII.1 library,

  • (5.65 ± 0.73)% in the NEA-OECD JEFF-3.2 library, and

  • 6.12%, without any uncertainties in the Japanese JENDL-4.0 library.

All libraries exhibit some energy dependence of the cumulative yields, but these changes for neutron energies of 14 MeV do not exceed the uncertainties of the yield at lower energies. Under such circumstances, we decided to adopt the ENDF/B-VII.1 value of the cumulative yield for the whole energy region of the 238U(γ,f) reaction. The corresponding cross section for the 238U(γ,f)99Mo reaction as obtained on the basis of the Padé approximant of the total fission cross section is shown in Fig. 52 together with the estimated uncertainties, the main contributor of which is identified with the isotope yield uncertainties.
Fig. 52

Evaluated cross section for the 238U(γ,f)99Mo reaction based on the Padé fit of the 238U(γ,f) reaction and the cumulative yield of 99Mo [128]. Estimated uncertainties are shown as percentages (dashed line, right-hand scale)

Integral yields for production of 99Mo by gamma-ray and neutron-induced reactions

Both the photon and neutron sources that are used for medical radioisotope production generate continuous spectra. These spectra depend on various accelerator-target combinations, the energy of the charged-particle beam, position of the target, etc., such that the production yield depends on the specific experimental arrangements and local circumstances. On the basis of the evaluated cross sections, flux and mass independent production yields can be calculated as a function of the energy of the bombarding particles defined as:
$$ {\text{Activity}}/({\text{incident}}\;{\text{particle}} \times {\text{unit}}\;{\text{mass}}) $$

Derived in the form of a function, this energy is identical in shape to the excitation function. By knowing the energy distribution of the incident particle and the range of energy applied, the integral yield can be readily deduced.

Summary and conclusions

Significant improvements and substantial extensions have been made to the IAEA-NDS recommended cross-section database for the production of specific gamma-emitting radionuclides. Evaluations of production cross sections and their uncertainties were performed on twenty-two reactions for direct, indirect and generator production of 51Cr, 99Mo/99mTc and 99mTc, 111In, 123Cs/123Xe/123I (and 121I impurity), and 201Pb/201Tl (and 200Pb and 202mPb impurities).

Additional production routes for 51Cr, 99mTc and 123I were explored, and some earlier evaluated nuclear reactions to produce 111In and 201Tl were also re-defined. A Padé fitting method was applied to the selected datasets, and uncertainties in all of the recommended cross-section data were deduced following the evaluation methodology described and fully adopted in Ref. [9]. Known experimental data were compared with the theoretical predictions to be found in the TENDL-2015 and 2017 libraries, and significant disagreements in the magnitude and shape of the resulting excitation functions existed in some cases (especially when considering isomeric states or deuteron-induced reactions). No major differences were found in the predictions of these two versions of the TENDL libraries, therefore, improved modelling is required. All of the recommended cross-section data have been used with reasonable confidence to determine integral yields for radionuclide production. Thus, the resulting datasets adopted in the present evaluation are seen as being acceptable for all practical purposes with good confidence. However, in a few cases, the data are more uncertain because of an existing lack of well-measured data.

Selection of the optimal reaction depends on many factors such as available beam particles and their achievable energy range, targetry and possible recovery problems with enriched target materials, production yield, impurities, and necessary chemical separation processes. The recommended cross sections are directly related to production yields and the acceptable levels of radioactive impurities. More specifically, improved radionuclidic purity is an important issue for practical applications in nuclear medicine. Under such circumstances, excitation functions for radionuclidic impurities are required to aid in defining optimum target compositions and the full energy range of the beam within the target in order to avoid or at least minimise their production. Recommendations concerning radioisotopic contaminants have only been made in the present evaluation for the production of 123I with 124Xe targets, and 201Tl with 203Tl targets. Other radionuclidic impurities need to be studied in what remains an important evolutionary programme of work.

Both the recommended excitation functions and production yields are available on the web page of the IAEA NDS at www-nds.iaea.org/medical/gamma_emitters.html and also at the IAEA medical portal www-nds.iaea.org/medportal/. These evaluated experimental data are important for existing and potential nuclear medicine applications, for improvement and validation of the various nuclear reaction models, and may also have useful roles in other fields of non-energy related nuclear studies (e.g., activation analysis and thin layer activation).

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    E.g., see p.14 in A. Paterson et al (2015) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 305:13–22.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The contents and preparation of this paper involved the support and hard work of a large number of individuals and institutions. Our sincere thanks are extended to all colleagues who have contributed to this IAEA coordinated research project over the previous five years.

The IAEA is grateful to all participant laboratories for their assistance in the work, and their support of individual staff to attend CRP meetings and undertake related activities. We also acknowledge the valuable contributions made by I. Spahn (Forschungszentrum Jülich) during his attendance at specific project meetings. 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. DE-AC-06CH11357.

References

  1. 1.
    Qaim SM (1982) Nuclear data relevant to cyclotron produced short-lived medical radioisotopes. Radiochim Acta 30:147–162; Qaim SM, Stöcklin G (1983) Production of some medically important short-lived neutron-deficient radioisotopes of halogens. Radiochim Acta 34:25–40; Qaim SM (1986) Recent developments in the production of 18F, 75,76,77Br and 123I. Int J Rad Appl Instrum A Appl Radiat Isot 37:803–810; Qaim SM (1987) Cyclotron production of generator radionuclides. Radiochim Acta 41:111–118Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Obložinský P (1995) First research coordination meeting on development of reference charged particle cross-section database for medical radioisotope production. IAEA report INDC(NDS)-349, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-nds-0349.pdf
  3. 3.
    Gul K, Hermanne A, Mustafa MG, Nortier FM, Obložinský P, Qaim SM, Scholten B, Shubin Y, Takács S, Tárkányi FT, Zhuang Y (2001) Charged particle cross-section database for medical radioisotope production: diagnostic radioisotopes and monitor reactions. IAEA technical report IAEA-TECDOC-1211, May 2001, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/tecdocs/iaea-tecdoc-1211.pdf
  4. 4.
    IAEA charged particle cross section database for medical radioisotope production, updated 2003–2004. www-nds.iaea.org/medical/. See also the IAEA medical portal at www-nds.iaea.org/medportal/
  5. 5.
    Takács S, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A, Paviotti de Corcuera R (2003) Validation and upgrading of the recommended cross section data of charged particle reactions used for production of PET radioisotopes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 211:169–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Takács S, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A (2005) Validation and upgrading of the recommended cross-section data of charged particle reactions: gamma emitter radioisotopes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 240:790–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Běták 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 YN, Sublet J-C, Tárkányi F (2011) Nuclear data for the production of therapeutic radionuclides. In: Qaim SM, Tárkányi F, Capote R (eds) IAEA Technical Reports Series no. 473. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/tecdocs/sti-doc-010-0473/
  8. 8.
    Nichols AL, Capote R (2013) Summary report of first research coordination meeting on nuclear data for charged-particle monitor reactions and medical isotope production, 3–7 December 2012, IAEA Headquarters, IAEA report INDC(NDS)-0630, February 2013, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-nds-0630.pdf; Nichols AL, Capote R, Nortier FM (2015) Summary report of second research coordination meeting on nuclear data for charged-particle monitor reactions and medical isotope production, 8–12 December 2014, IAEA Headquarters, IAEA report INDC(NDS)-0675, April 2015, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-nds-0675.pdf; Nichols AL, Nortier FM, Capote R (2017) Summary report of third research coordination meeting on nuclear data for charged-particle monitor reactions and medical isotope production, 30 May–3 June 2016, IAEA Headquarters, IAEA report INDC(NDS)-0717, January 2017, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-nds-0717.pdf; Nichols AL, Capote R (2014) Nuclear data for medical applications—recent developments and future requirements. In: Herman M, Hoblit SD, Johnson TD, McCutchan EA, Sonzogni AA (eds) International conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 4–8 March 2013, New York, USA. Published in Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for science and technology. Nucl Data Sheets 120:239–241
  9. 9.
    Hermanne A, Ignatyuk AV, Capote R, Carlson BV, Engle JW, Kellett MA, Kibedi T, Kim GN, 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 charged-particle monitor reactions. Nucl Data Sheets 148:338–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koning AJ, Rochman D, Kopecký J, Sublet J-C, 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 (2017) TENDL-2015: TALYS-based evaluated nuclear data library. tendl.web.psi.ch/tendl_2015/tendl2015.html. TENDL-2017: TALYS-based evaluated nuclear data library. tendl.web.psi.ch/tendl_2017/tendl2017.html
  11. 11.
    Capote R, Smith DL, Trkov A (2010) Nuclear data evaluation methodology including estimates of covariances. EPJ Web Conf 8:04001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Padé HE (1892) Sur la représentation approchée d’ une fonction par des fractions rationnelles. Suppl Ann Sci L’Ecole Norm Sup Ser 9:3–93Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graves-Morris PR (ed) (1973) Padé approximants and their applications. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baker Jr GA (1975) Essentials of Padé approximants. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vinogradov VN, Gai EV, Rabotnov NS (1987) Analytical approximation of data in nuclear and neutron physics. Energoatomizdat, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gai EV (2007) Some algorithms for the nuclear data evaluation and construction of the uncertainty covariance matrices. Probl Atom Sci Technol Ser Nucl Constants 1–2:56–65Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Badikov SA, Gai EV (2003) Some sources of the underestimation of evaluated cross-section uncertainties. IAEA report INDC(NDS)-438, pp 117–129, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-nds-0438.pdf
  18. 18.
    Gai EV, Ignatyuk AV (2008) Uncertainties and covariances of the fission cross sections and the fission neutron multiplicities for actinides. Nucl Data Sheets 109:2890–2893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    NuDat, NNDC, Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA. Decay data retrieval code. www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/
  20. 20.
    Johnson CH, Galonsky A, Ulrich JP (1958) Proton strength functions from (p,n). Phys Rev 109:1243–1254 (EXFOR: T0122) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albert RD (1959) (p,n) cross section and proton optical-model parameters in the 4–5.5 MeV energy region. Phys Rev 115:925–927 (EXFOR: T0130) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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: B0043) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shore BW, Wall NS, Irvine JW (1961) Interactions of 7.5 MeV protons with copper and vanadium. Phys Rev 123:276–283 (EXFOR: T0125) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Albouy G, Gusakow M, Poffé N, Sergolle H, Valentin L (1962) Réaction (p,n) a moyenne énergie. J Phys Radium 23:1000–1002 (EXFOR: B0106) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hansen LF, Albert RD (1962) Statistical theory predictions for 5- to 11-MeV (p,n) and (p,p’) nuclear reactions in 51V, 59Co, 63Cu, 65Cu and 103Rh. Phys Rev 128:291–299 (EXFOR: B0066) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taketani H, Alford WP (1962) (p,n) cross sections on Ti47, V51, Cr52, Co59, and Cu63 from 4 to 6.5 MeV. Phys Rev 125:291–294 (EXFOR: B0051) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wing J, Huizenga JR (1962) (p,n) cross sections of V51, Cr52, Cu63, Cu65, Ag107, Ag109, Cd111, Cd114 and La139 from 5 to 10.5 MeV. Phys Rev 128:280–290 (EXFOR: T0124) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hontzeas S, Yaffe L (1963) Interaction of vanadium with protons of energies up to 84 MeV. Can J Chem 41:2194–2209 (EXFOR: C2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Humes RM, Dell Jr GF, Ploughe WD, Hausman HJ (1963) (p,n) cross sections at 6.75 MeV. Phys Rev 130:1522–1524 (EXFOR: B0061) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson CH, Trail CC, Galonsky A (1964) Thresholds for (p,n) reactions on 26 intermediate-weight nuclei. Phys Rev 136:B1719–B1729 (EXFOR: T0126) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dell GF, Ploughe WD, Hausman HJ (1965) Total reaction cross sections in the mass range 45 to 65. Nucl Phys 64:513–523 (EXFOR: B0064) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harris KK, Grench HA, Johnson RG, Vaughn FJ (1965) The V51(p,n)Cr51 reaction as a neutron source of known intensity. Nucl Instrum Methods 33:257–260 (EXFOR: T0030) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chodil G, Jopson RC, Mark H, Swift CD, Thomas RG, Yates MK (1967) (p,n) and (p,2n) cross sections on nine elements. Nucl Phys A 93:648–672 (EXFOR: C0693) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gadioli E, Grassi Strini AM, Bianco GL, Strini G, Tagliaferri G (1974) Excitation functions of 51V, 56Fe, 65Cu(p,n) reactions between 10 and 45 MeV. Nuovo Cimento A 22:547–558 (EXFOR: B0027) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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 á 20 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods 127:269–278 (EXFOR: O0086) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mehta MK, Kailas S, Sekharan KK (1977) Total (p,n) reaction cross-section study on V-51 over incident energy-range 1.56–5.53 MeV. Pramana 9:419–434 (EXFOR: D6059) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Michel R, Brinkmann G, Weigel H, Herr W (1979) Measurement and hybrid-model analysis of proton-induced reactions with V, Fe and Co. Nucl Phys A 322:40–60 (EXFOR: A0146) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Michel R, Brinkmann G (1980) On the depth-dependent production of radionuclides (44 ≤ A≤59) by solar protons in extraterrestrial matter. J Radioanal Chem 59:467–510 (EXFOR: A0145) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zyskind JL, Barnes CA, Davidson JM, Fowler WA, Marrs RE, Shapiro MH (1980) Competition effects in proton-induced reactions on V-51. Nucl Phys A 343:295–314 (EXFOR: C0627) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stück T (1983) Proton induced reactions on Ti, V, Mn, Fe, Co and Ni. Measurement and hybrid model analysis of integral excitation functions and their application in model calculation for the production of cosmogenic nuclides. Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, FRG, pp 1–165, thesis (EXFOR: A0100) Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kailas S, Gupta SK, Kerekatte SS, Fernandes CV (1985) V-51(p,n)Cr-51 reaction from E p 1.9 to 4.5 MeV. Pramana 24:629–635 (EXFOR: A0332) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Michel R, Peiffer F, Stück R (1985) Measurement and hybrid model analysis of integral excitation-functions for proton-induced reactions on vanadium, manganese and cobalt up to 200 MeV. Nucl Phys A 441:617–639 (EXFOR: A0100) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bastos MAV, Debritto JLQ, Vinagre UM, Dasilva AG (1990) A production method for Cr-51 at IEN’s cyclotron. Radiochim Acta 50:189–191 (EXFOR: D0699) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jung P (1992) Cross sections for the production of helium and long-living radioactive isotopes by protons and deuterons. In: Qaim SM (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 13–17 May 1991, Jülich, Germany. Springer, Berlin, pp 352–354Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Levkovskij VN (1991) The cross-sections of activation of nuclides of middle-range mass (A = 40–100) by protons and α-particles of middle range energies (E = 10–50 MeV). INTER-VESTI, Moscow (EXFOR: A0510) Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wenrong Z, Hanlin L, Weixiang Y (1994) Excitation function of V-51(p,n)Cr-51 up to 22 MeV. Chin J Nucl Phys 16:67 (EXFOR: S0042) Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Musthafa MM, Sharma MK, Singh BP, Prasad R (2005) Measurement and analysis of cross sections for (p,n) reactions in V-51 and In-113. Appl Radiat Isot 62:419–428 (EXFOR: O1237) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Solieman AHM, Al-Abyad M, Ditrói F, Saleh ZA (2016) Experimental and theoretical study for the production of 51Cr using p, d, 3He and 4He projectiles on V, Ti and Cr targets. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 366:19–27 (EXFOR: D4339) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Hermanne A (2016) Activation cross-sections of proton induced reactions on vanadium in the 37–65 MeV energy range. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 381:16–28 (EXFOR: D4356) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Weinreich R, Probst HJ, Qaim SM (1980) Production of chromium-48 for applications in life sciences. Appl Radiat Isot 31:223–232 (EXFOR: A0169) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jung P (1987) Helium production and long-term activation by protons and deuterons in metals for fusion reactor application. J Nucl Mater 144:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wenrong Z, Hanlin L, Weixiang Y (1992) Cross section measurement for V-51(d,2n)Cr-51 reaction. Chin J Nucl Phys 14:309 (EXFOR: S0039) Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sonzogni AA, Romo ASMA, Mosca HO, Nassiff SJ (1993) Alpha and deuteron induced reactions on vanadium. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 170:143–156 (EXFOR: A0555) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Takács S, Hermanne A, Baba M, Ignatyuk AV (2011) Investigation of activation cross-sections of deuteron induced reactions on vanadium up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 269:1792–1800 (EXFOR: D4246) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Michel R, Bodemann R, Busemann H, Daunke R, Gloris M, Lange H-J, Klug B, Krins A, Leya I, Lupke M, Neumann S, Reinhardt H, Schnatz-Buttgen M, Herpers U, Schiekel Th, Sudbrock F, Holmqvist B, Conde H, Malmborg P, Suter M, Dittrich-Hannen B, Kubik P-W, Synal H-A (1997) Cross sections for the production of residual nuclides by low- and medium-energy 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: O0276) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Al-Abyad M, Spahn I, Qaim SM (2010) Experimental studies and nuclear model calculations on proton induced reactions on manganese up to 45 MeV with reference to production of Fe-55, Mn-54 and Cr-51. Appl Radiat Isot 68:2393–2397 (EXFOR: D0632) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Hermanne A, Yamazaki H, Baba M, Mohammadi A (2013) Activation cross-sections of longer lived products of proton induced nuclear reactions on manganese up to 70 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 308:34–39 (EXFOR: D4286) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Hermanne A, Yamazaki H, Baba M, Mohammadi A, Ignatyuk AV (2011) Activation cross-sections of deuteron induced reactions on manganese up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 269:1878–1883 (EXFOR: D4247) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rayudu GVS (1964) Formation cross sections of various radionuclides from Ni, Fe, Si, Mg, O and C for protons of energies between 130 and 400 MeV. Can J Chem 42:1149–1154 (EXFOR: 0073) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    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: B0073) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brodzinski RL, Rancitelli LA, Cooper JA, Wogman NA (1971) High-energy proton spallation of iron. Phys Rev C 4:1257–1265 (EXFOR: C0272) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Walton JR, Yaniv A, Heymann D, Edgerley D, Rowe MW (1973) He and Ne cross sections in natural Mg, Si targets and radionuclide cross sections in natural Si, Ca, Ti and Fe targets bombarded with 14 to 45 MeV protons. J Geophys Res 78:6428–6442 (EXFOR: O0350) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schoen NC, Orlov G, McDonald RJ (1979) Excitation functions for radioactive isotopes produced by proton bombardment of Fe Co, and W in the energy range from 10 to 60 MeV. Phys Rev C 20:88–92 (EXFOR: T0276) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Barchuk IF, Bulkin VS, Kuzmenkova VA, Kurilo PM, Lobach YN, Ogorodnik AF, Procopenko VS, Sklyarenko VD, Tokarevsky VV (1987) Excitation functions of the reactions induced by interactions of protons over an energy range up to 67 MeV with silicon and iron nuclei. At Energiya 63:30 (EXFOR: A0339) Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fassbender F, Shubin YuN, Qaim SM (1999) Formation of activation products in interactions of medium energy protons with Na, Si, P, S, Cl, Ca and Fe. Radiochim Acta 84:59–67 (EXFOR: O0728) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    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, Santa Fe, NM, USA, vol 769, pp 1011–1014Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sisterson JM, Vincent J (2006) Cross section measurements for proton-induced reactions in Fe and Ni producing relatively short-lived radionuclides at E p = 140–500 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B251:1–8 (EXFOR: C1447) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Al-Abyad M, Comsan MNH, Qaim SM (2009) Excitation functions of proton-induced reactions on natFe and enriched 57Fe with particular reference to the production of 57Co. Appl Radiat Isot 67:122–128 (EXFOR: D0500) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kim K, Khandaker MU, Naik H, Kim G (2014) Excitation functions of proton induced reactions on natFe in the energy region up to 45 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 322:63–69 (EXFOR: D7007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Graves SA, Ellison PA, Barnhart TE, Valdovinos HF, Birnbaum ER, Nortier FM, Nickles RJ, Engle JW (2016) Nuclear excitation functions of proton-induced reactions (E p = 35-90 MeV) from Fe, Cu and Al. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 386:44–53 (EXFOR: C22430) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Iguchi A, Amano H, Tanaka S (1960) (α,n) cross sections for 48Ti and 51V. J At Energy Soc Jpn 2:682–684 (EXFOR: E1930) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Vonach H, Haight RC, Winkler G (1983) (α,n) and total α-reaction cross sections for 48Ti and 51V. Phys Rev C 28:2278–2285 (EXFOR: C0318) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chang CN, Kent JJ, Morgan JF, Blatt SL (1973) Total cross section measurements by X-ray detection of electron-capture of residual activity. Nucl Instrum Methods 109:327–331 (EXFOR: C0951) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Michel R, Brinkmann G, Stück R (1983) Integral excitation functions of α-induced reactions on titanium, iron and nickel. Radiochim Acta 32:173–189 (EXFOR: A0148) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Morton AJ, Tims SG, Scott AF (1992) The 48Ti(α,n)51Cr and 48Ti(α,p)51V cross sections. Nucl Phys A 128:167–182 (EXFOR: D0061) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tárkányi F, Szelecsényi F, Kopecký P (1992) Cross section data for proton, 3He and α-particle induced reactions on natNi, natCu and natTi for monitoring beam performance. In: Qaim SM (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 13–17 May 1991, Jülich, Germany. Springer, Berlin, pp 529–532Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Peng X, He F, Long X (1998) Excitation functions for the reactions induced by alpha-particle impact of natural titanium. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 140:9–12 (EXFOR: O1074) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hermanne A, Sonck M, Takács S, Szelecsényi F, Tárkányi F (1999) Excitation functions of alpha particle induced reactions on natTi with reference to monitoring and TLA. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B152:187–201; grouped into seven series of data in the original publication—compiler has reproduced them on the appropriate figure as two different datasets (labelled ‘a’ and ‘b’) (EXFOR: D4089) Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Baglin CM, Norman ER, Larimer RM, Rech GA (2004) Measurement of 107Ag(α,γ)111In cross sections., In: Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for science and technology, Santa Fe, NM, USA, vol 769, 2, pp 1370–1373 (EXFOR: C1474) Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Takács S, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A (2006) Production of In radioisotopes for medical use by alpha bombardment of natural silver target. In: 15th Pacific basin nuclear conference, Sydney, Australia, October 2006; data received as a private communicationGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Király B, Takács S, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A (2007) Cross section measurements on Er, Nb and Yb, private communication (2007)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Takács S, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A (2007) Cross section measurements of nuclear reactions on Cu and Ti target by alpha bombardment for monitoring use—data received as private communicationGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Uddin MS, Scholten B (2016) Excitation functions of alpha particle induced reactions on natTi up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B380:15–19 (EXFOR: O2304) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lagunas-Solar MC, Kiefer PM, Carvacho OF, Lagunas CA, Cha YP (1991) Cyclotron production of NCA 99mTc and 99Mo: an alternative non-reactor supply source of instant 99mTc and 99Mo → 99mTc generators. Appl Radiat Isot 42:643–657 (EXFOR: C0068) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Scholten B, Lambrecht RM, Cogneau M, Vera Ruiz H, Qaim SM (1999) Excitation functions for the cyclotron production of 99mTc and 99Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 51:69–80 (EXFOR: O0737) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Takács S, Szûcs Z, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A, Sonck M (2003) Evaluation of proton-induced reactions on 100Mo: new cross sections for the production of 99mTc and 99Mo. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 257:195–201 (EXFOR: D4115) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Uddin MS, Hagiwara M, Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Baba M (2004) Experimental studies on the proton-induced activation reactions of molybdenum in the energy range 22–67 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 60:911–920 (EXFOR: E1894) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Khandaker MU, Uddin MS, Kim KS, Lee YS, Kim GN (2007) Measurement of cross-sections for the (p,xn) reactions in natural molybdenum. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 262:171–181 (EXFOR: D0446) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Lebeda O, Pruszyński M (2010) New measurement of excitation functions for (p,x) reactions on natMo with special regard to the formation of 95mTc, 96m+gTc, 99mTc and 99Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 68:2355–2365 (EXFOR: D0615) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Alharbi AA, Azzam A, McCleskey M, Roeder B, Spiridon A, Simmons E, Goldberg VZ, Banu A, Trache L, Tribble RE (2011) Medical radioisotopes production: A comprehensive cross-section study for the production of Mo and Tc radioisotopes via proton induced nuclear reactions on natMo. In: Singh N (ed) Medicine diagnostics radioisotopes—applications in bio-medical science. InTech, Croatia, pp 3–26 (EXFOR: C2157). ISBN 978-953-307-748-2Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Chodash P, Angell CT, Benitez J, Norman EB, Pedretti M, Shugart H, Swanberg E, Yee R (2011) Measurement of excitation functions for the natMo(d,x)99Mo and natMo(p,x)99Mo reactions. Appl Radiat Isot 69:1447–1452 (EXFOR: C1871) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gagnon K, Bénard F, Kovacs M, Ruth TJ, Schafferd P, Wilson JS, McQuarrie SA (2011) Cyclotron production of 99mTc: experimental measurement of the 100Mo(p,x)99Mo, 99mTc and 99gTc excitation functions from 8 to 18 MeV. Nucl Med Biol 38:907–916 (EXFOR: C2156) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Takács S, Ignatyuk AV (2012) Investigation of activation cross-sections of proton induced nuclear reactions on natMo up to 40 MeV: new data and evaluation. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 280:45–73 (EXFOR: D4264) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Manenti S, Holzwarth U, Loriggiola M, Gini L, Esposito J, Groppi F, Simonelli F (2014) The excitation functions of 100Mo(p,x)99Mo and 100Mo(p,2n)99mTc. Appl Radiat Isot 94:344–348 (EXFOR: O2263) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Takács S, Hermanne A, Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Aikawa M (2015) Re-examination of cross sections of the 100Mo(p,2n)99mTc reaction. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 347:26–38 (EXFOR: D4322) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Červenák J, Lebeda O (2016) Experimental cross-sections for proton-induced nuclear reactions on natMo. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 380:32–49 (EXFOR: D0805) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sonck M, Takács S, Szelecsényi F, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F (1999) Excitation function of deuteron induced nuclear reactions on natMo and 100Mo(90%) up to 50 MeV: an alternative route for the production of 99Mo. In: Duggan JL, Morgan IL (eds) Proceedings of the 15th international conference on application of accelerators in research and industry, Denton, Texas, USA, November 1998. AIP conference proceedings, vol 475, pp 987–990, AIP New York, Woodbury, USA (EXFOR: D4098) Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lebeda O, Fikrle M (2010) New measurement of excitation functions for (d,x) reactions on nat-Mo with special regard to the formation of 95mTc, 96m+gTc, 99mTc and 99Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 68:2425–2432 (EXFOR: D0631) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Tárkányi F, Hermanne A, Takács S, Sonck M, Szûcs Z, Király B, Ignatyuk AV (2011) Investigation of alternative production routes of 99mTc: deuteron induced reactions on 100Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 69:18–25 (EXFOR: D4235) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Takács S, Király B, Hermanne A, Sonck M, Baba M, Ignatyuk AV (2012) Investigation of activation cross-sections of deuteron induced nuclear reactions on natural Mo up to 50 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 274:1–25 (EXFOR: D4260) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Lagunas-Solar MC, Zeng NX, Mirshad I, Grey-Morgan T (1996) An update on the direct production of 99mTc with proton beams and enriched 100Mo targets. Trans Am Nucl Soc 74:137 (EXFOR: C0963) Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Khandaker MU, Moinul Haque Meaze AKM, Kim K, Son D, Kim GN (2006) Measurements of the proton-induced reaction cross-sections of natMo by using the MC50 cyclotron at the Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences. J Korean Phys Soc 48:821–826Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Sonck M, Takács S, Szelecsényi F, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F (1997) Excitation functions of deuteron induced nuclear reactions on natMo up to 21 MeV: an alternative route for the production of 94m, 99mTc and 99Mo. In: Reffo G, Ventura A, Grandi C (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 19–24 May 1997, Trieste, Italy, Part 2, pp 1637–1639, Editrice Compositori, Italy (EXFOR: D4100) Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    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: P0019) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Nieckarz Jr WJ, Caretto Jr AA (1969) Production of 111In and 114mIn from the separated isotopes of cadmium using 70- to 400-MeV protons. Phys Rev 178:1887–1893 (EXFOR: C0345) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Skakun EA, Kljucharev AP, Rakivnenko YN, Romanij IA (1975) Excitation functions of (p,n)- and (p,2n)-reactions on cadmium isotopes. Izv Akademii Nauk SSSR Ser Fiz 39:24–30 (EXFOR: A0001) Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Nortier FM, Mills SJ, Steyn GF (1990) Excitation functions and production rates of relevance to the production of 111In by proton bombardment of natCd and natIn up to 100 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 41:1201–1208 (EXFOR: A0500) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Tárkányi F, Szelecsényi F, Kopecký P, Molnár T, Andó L, Mikecz P, Tóth G, Rydl A (1994) Cross sections of proton induced nuclear reactions on enriched 111Cd and 112Cd for the production of 111In for use in nuclear medicine. Appl Radiat Isot 45:239–249 (EXFOR: D4027) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Tárkányi F, Király B, Ditrói F, Takács S, Csikái G, Hermanne A, Uddin MS, Hagiwara M, Baba M, Ido T, Shubin YN, Kovalev SF (2006) Activation cross-sections on cadmium: proton induced nuclear reactions up to 80 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 245:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Khandaker MU, Kim K, Lee MW, Kim KS, Kim GN, Cho YS, Lee YO (2008) Production cross-sections for the residual radionuclides from the natCd(p,x) nuclear processes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 266:4877–4887 (EXFOR: D0516) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Al-Saleh 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: D0467) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Hermanne A, Adam-Rebeles R, Van den Winkel P, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2014) Production of 111In and 114mIn by proton induced reactions: an update on excitation functions, chemical separation-purification and recovery of target material. Radiochim Acta 102:1111–1126 (EXFOR: D4320) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Kurenkov NV, Malinin AB, Sebyakin AA, Venikov NI (1989) Excitation functions of proton-induced nuclear reactions on 124Xe: production of 123I. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 135:39–50 (EXFOR: A0436) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Tárkányi F, Qaim SM, Stocklin G, Sajjad M, Lambrecht RM, Schweickert H (1991) Excitation functions of (p,2n) and (p,pn) reactions and differential and integral yields of 123I in proton induced nuclear reactions on highly enriched 124Xe. Appl Radiat Isot 42:221–228 (EXFOR: D4029) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Adam-Rebeles R, Ignatyuk A, Spellerberg S, Schweikert R (2011) Limitation of the long-lived 121Te contaminant in production of 123I through the 124Xe(p,x) route. Appl Radiat Isot 69:358–368 (EXFOR: D4238) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Sakai M, Ikegama H, Yamazaki T, Saito K (1965) Nuclear structure of Hg200. Nucl Phys 65:177–202; see also data file in Physics Data number 15-5 (1982) 013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Lebowitz G, Greene MW, Fairchild R, Bradley-Moore PR, Atkins HL, Ansari AN, Richards P, Belgrave E (1975) Thallium-201 for medical use. J Nucl Med 16:151–155 (EXFOR: C1028) PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Lagunas-Solar MC, Jungerman JA, Peek NF, Theus RM (1978) Thallium-201 yields and excitation functions for the lead activities produced by irradiation of natural thallium with 15–60 MeV protons. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 29:159–165 (EXFOR: T0148) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Blue JW, Liu DC, Smathers JB (1978) Thallium 201 production with the idle beam from neutron therapy. Med Phys 5:532–535 (EXFOR: C1027) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Qaim SM, Weinreich R, Ollig H (1979) Production of 201Tl and 203Pb via proton induced nuclear reactions on natural thallium. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 30:85–95 (EXFOR: A0185) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Bonardi M, Birattari C, Salomone A (1983) 201Tl production for medical use by (p,xn) nuclear reactions on Tl and Hg natural and enriched targets. In: Bockhoff KH (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for science and technology, May 1983, Antwerp, Belgium, pp 916–918. Additional information in Girardi F, Goetz L, Sabbioni E, Marafante E, Merlini M, Acerbi E, Birattari C, Castiglioni M, Resmini F (1975) Preparation of203Pb compounds for studies on pathways and effects of lead pollution. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 26:267–277Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Hermanne A, Walravens N, Cichelli O (1992) Optimisation of isotope production by cross section determination. In: Qaim SM (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 13–17 May 1991, Jülich, Germany, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 616–618 [also private communication from authors (EXFOR: A0494)]Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Al-Saleh FS, Al-Harbi AA, Azzam A (2007) Yield and excitation function measurements of some nuclear reactions on natural thallium induced by protons leading to the production of medical radioisotopes 201Tl and 203Pb. Radiochim Acta 9:127–132 (EXFOR: O1509) Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Takács S, Adam-Rebeles R, Walravens N, Cichelli O, Ignatyuk AV (2013) Investigation of activation cross-sections of proton induced nuclear reactions on natTl up to 42 MeV: review, new data and evaluation. Appl Radiat Isot 74:109–122 (EXFOR: D4277) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Beil H, Bergere R, Carlos P, Lepretre A, De Miniac A, Veyssiere A (1974) A study of the photoneutron contribution to the giant dipole resonance in doubly even Mo isotopes. Nucl Phys A 227:427–449 (EXFOR: L0032) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Ejiri H, Shima T, Miyamoto S, Horikawa K, Kitagawa Y, Asano Y, Date S, Ohashi Y (2011) Resonant photonuclear reactions for isotope transmutation. J Phys Soc Jpn 80:094202 (EXFOR: K2373) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Utsunomiya H, Goriely S, Kondo T, Iwamoto C, Akimune H, Yamagata T, Toyokawa H, Harada H, Kitatani F, Lui Y-W, Larsen AC, Guttormsen M, Koehler PE, Hilaire S, Peru S, Martini M, Koning AJ (2013) Photoneutron cross sections for Mo isotopes: a step toward a unified understanding of (γ,n) and (n,γ) reactions. Phys Rev C 88:015805 (EXFOR: K2433) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Chadwick MB, Herman M, Obložinský P, Dunn ME, Danon Y, Kahler AC, Smith DL, Pritychenko B, Arbanas G, Arcilla R, Brewer R, Brown DA, Capote R, Carlson AD, Cho YS et al (2011) ENDF/B-VII.1 nuclear data for science and technology: cross sections, covariances, fission product yields and decay data. Nucl Data Sheets 112:2887–2996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Fabry A, Jacquemin R (1969) Integral determination of 2200 m/sec activation cross sections. Euratom progress report EANDC No. 115, p 195 (EXFOR: 20186) Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Gleason G (1977) Thermal neutron (n,γ) cross sections and resonance integrals: Part 2, private communication (EXFOR: 10662) Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Kurosawa M, Shimizu K (1979) Estimation for production of Molybdenum-99 using (n,γ) reaction. J At Energy Soc Jpn 21:505–509 (EXFOR: 21584) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Wyrick JM, Poenitz WP (1982) Neutron-capture-activation cross sections of 94-, 96-Zr and 98-, 100-Mo at thermal and 30 keV energy. Conf Rep Argonne Natl Lab Rep Ser 4(83):196 (EXFOR: 12831) Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Nguyen VD, Pham DK, Kim TT, Bui VL, Rahman MS, Kim KS, Kim G, Oh Y, Lee H-S, Cho M-H, Ko IS, Namkung W (2009) Thermal neutron cross-section and resonance integral of the 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo reaction. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 267:462–468 (EXFOR: 31656) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    El Abd A (2010) Measurements of the thermal neutron cross-sections and resonance integrals for 186W(n,γ)187W and 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo reactions. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 284:321–326 (EXFOR: 31693) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Farina Arbocco F, Vermaercke P, Smits K, Sneyers L, Strijckmans K (2013) Experimental determination of k0, Q0, <Er> factors and neutron cross-sections for 41 isotopes of interest in neutron activation analysis. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 296:931–938 (EXFOR: 23266) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Macklin RL, Lazar NH, Lyon WS (1957) Neutron activation cross sections with Sb-Be neutrons. Phys Rev 107:504–508 (EXFOR: 11399) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Booth R, Ball WP, MacGregor MH (1958) Neutron activation cross sections at 25 keV. Phys Rev 112:226–229 (EXFOR: 11429) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Vervier JF (1958/1959) Section efficace de capture radiative pour des neutrons d`une source Sb-Be. Nucl Phys 9:569–576 (EXFOR: 20205) Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Hasan SS, Chaubey AK, Sehgal ML (1968) Study of the average level spacing from neutron-capture cross-section. Nuovo Cimento B 58:402–406 (EXFOR: 30077) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Chaturvedi SN, Prasad R (1970) Measurement of the (n,γ) cross section by activation technique in the keV region. In: Nuclear and solid state physics symposium, Madurai, vol 2, p 615 (EXFOR: 30493 #1) Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Sriramachandra Murty M, Siddappa K, Rama Rao J (1973) Capture cross sections of intermediate neutrons. J Phys Soc Jpn 35:8–11 (EXFOR: 31712) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Rimawi K, Chrien RE (1977) 24 keV neutron capture studies in Mo isotopes. Phys Rev C 15:1271–1281 (EXFOR: 10660 #1) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Anand RP, Jhingan ML, Bhattacharya D, Kondaiah E (1979) 25 keV-neutron capture cross-sections. Nuovo Cimento A 50:247–257 (EXFOR: 30390) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Lyon WS, Macklin RL (1959) Neutron activation at 195 keV. Phys Rev 114:1619–1620 (EXFOR: 11399; EXFOR: 11407) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Weston LW, Seth KK, Bilpuch EG, Newson HW (1960) Neutron capture cross sections in the keV region. Part II. Spin-orbit coupling and the optical model. Ann Phys 10:477–489 (EXFOR: 11818) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Kapchigashev SV, Popov YuP (1964) Capture cross sections in construction materials for neutrons with energies up to 50 keV. Sov At Energy 15:808 (EXFOR: 40663) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Peto G, Milligy Z, Hunyadi I (1967) Radiative capture cross-sections for 3 MeV neutrons. J Nucl Energy 21:797–801 (EXFOR: 30031) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Stupegia DC, Schmidt M, Keedy CR, Madson AA (1968) Neutron capture between 5 keV and 3 MeV. J Nucl Energy 22:267–281 (EXFOR: 11624) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Dovbenko AG, Kolesov VE, Koroleva VP, Tolstikov VA (1969) Cross section of Mn-55, Ga-69, Ga-71 and Mo-98 for radiative capture of fast neutrons. Sov At Energy 26:82 (EXFOR: 40001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Musgrove ARL, Allen BJ, Boldeman JW, Macklin RL (1976) Average neutron resonance parameters and radiative capture cross sections for the isotopes of molybdenum. Nucl Phys A 270:108–140; see also Int. Conf. Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Data, Harwell, UK (1978) 449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Trofimov JN, Nemilov JA (1984) Mo-98 radiation capture cross-section for neutron energy range 0.3–2 MeV. Vop At Nauki Tekhn Ser Yadernye Konstanty 1984(3/57):15 (EXFOR: 40855) Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Chunhao W, Yijun X, Xianguan L, Fuqing H, Jingfu Y, Zhihua Y, Xiufeng P, Mantian L, Xiaobing L, Hanlin L (1992) Measurement and analysis of Mo-98(n,γ)Mo-99 reaction cross section. In: Qaim SM (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for science and technology, 13–17 May 1991, Jülich, Germany, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 370–372Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Blinov MV, Chuvaev SV, Filatenkov AA, Jakovlev VA, Rimski-Korsakov AA (1996) Measurement of cross sections of some reactions of importance in fusion reactor technology. IAEA report INDC(NDS)-342, pp 53–64, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-nds-0342.pdf (EXFOR: 41406)
  154. 154.
    Bhike M, Saxena A, Roy BJ, Choudhury RK, Kailas S, Ganesan S (2009) Measurement of 67Zn(n,p)67Cu, 92Mo(n,p)92mNb, and 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo reaction cross sections at incident neutron energies of E n = 1.6 and 3.7 MeV. Nucl Sci Eng 163:175–182 (EXFOR: 14251); Bhike M, Roy BJ, Saxena A, Choudhury RK, Kailas S, Ganesan S (2012) Measurement of 232Th(n,γ)233Th, 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo, 186W(n,γ)187W, 115In(n,γ)116m 1In, and 92Mo(n,p)92mNb cross sections in the energy range of 1.6 to 3.7 MeV. Nucl Sci Eng 170:44–53 (EXFOR: 33038) Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Uddin MS, Afroze N, Hossain SM, Zakaria AKM, Islam MA (2015) Measurement of cross section of the 98Mo(n,γ)99Mo reaction using monochromatic thermal neutrons. Radiochim Acta 103:85–90 (EXFOR: 31757) Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    International collaboration of Data Bank member countries co-ordinated by the JEFF Scientific Co-ordination Group, The JEFF-3.2 Nuclear Data Library, NEA OECD, Paris. www.oecd-nea.org/dbforms/data/eva/evatapes/jeff_32/. Accessed 5 March 2014
  157. 157.
    Shibata K, Iwamoto O, Nakagawa T, Iwamoto N, Ichihara A, Kunieda S, Chiba S, Furutaka K, Otuka N, Ohsawa T, Murata T, Matsunobu H, Zukeran A, Kamada S, Katakura J (2011) JENDL-40: a new library for nuclear science and engineering. J Nucl Sci Technol 48:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Blokhin AI, Gai EV, Ignatyuk AV, Koba II, Manokhin VN, Pronyaev VG (2016) New version of the neutron data library BROND-3.1. Vop At Nauki Tekhn Ser Nucl React Constants 2(2):62–93. https://vant.ippe.ru/en/brond-3-1 Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Mughabghab SF (2006) Atlas of neutron resonances: resonance parameters and thermal cross sections Z = 1–100. Elsevier, Amsterdam (EXFOR: V1001) Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Paul EB, Clarke RL (1953) Cross section measurements of reactions induced by neutrons of 14.5 MeV energy. Can J Phys 31:267–277 (EXFOR: 11274) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Strohal P, Cindro N, Eman B (1962) Reaction mechanism and shell effects from the interaction of 14.6 MeV neutrons with nuclei. Nucl Phys 30:49–67 (EXFOR: 30008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Khurana CS, Hans HS (1961) Cross-sections for (n,2n) reactions at 14.8 MeV. Nucl Phys 28:560–569 (EXFOR: 31247) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Cuzzocrea P, Perillo E, Notarrigo S (1967) Activation cross sections of Mo isotopes for 14.1 MeV neutrons. Nucl Phys A 103:616–624 (EXFOR: 21141) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Csikai J, Peto G (1967) Influence of direct inelastic scattering on (n,2n) cross sections. Acta Phys Hung 23:87–94; Csikai J (1968) Magreakciok kiserleti vizsgalata 14 MeV koruli neutronokkal. Magyar Fizikai Folyoirat 16:123 (EXFOR: 30119) Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Lu WD, Ranakumar N, Fink RW (1970) Activation cross sections for (n,2n) reactions at 14.4 MeV in the region Z = 40–60. Precision measurements and systematics. Phys Rev C 1:350–357 (EXFOR: 10497) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Qaim SM (1972) Activation cross sections, isomeric cross-section ratios and systematics of (n,2n) reactions at 14–15 MeV. Nucl Phys A 185:614–624; see also Chemical Nuclear Data Conference, Canterbury, UK (1971) 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Maslov GN, Nasyrov F, Pashkin NF (1974) Experimental cross-sections for nuclear reactions involving neutrons with energies of about 14 MeV. IAEA report INDC(CCP)-42, pp 10–12, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-ccp-0042.pdf; see also Vop At Nauki Tekhn Ser Jadernye Konstanty, Issue 9 (1972) 50 (EXFOR: 40136)
  168. 168.
    Araminowicz J, Dresler J (1973) Investigation of the (n,2n) reaction with 14.6 MeV neutrons. Inst Badan Jadr Nucl Res, Swierk + Warsaw Report No. 1464, p 14 (EXFOR: 30264) Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Fujino Y, Hyakutake M, Kumabe I (1977) Activation cross sections on zirconium and molybdenum isotopes induced by 14.6 MeV neutrons. Japan progress report to NEANDC No. 51, p 60 (EXFOR: 20850) Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Amemiya S, Ishibashi K, Katoh T (1982) Neutron activation cross section of molybdenum isotopes at 14.8 MeV. J Nucl Sci Technol 19:781–788 (EXFOR: 21840) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Atsumi H, Miyade H, Yoshida M, Ishii T, Yamamoto H, Kawade K, Katoh T, Takahashi A, Iida T (1984) Measurement of neutron activation cross-sections of fusion reactor materials at 14.6 MeV. Japan progress report to NEANDC No. 106/U, p 55 (EXFOR: 21935) Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Rahman MM, Qaim SM (1985) Excitation functions of some neutron threshold reactions on isotopes of molybdenum. Nucl Phys A 435:43–53 (EXFOR: 21990) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Thiep TD, Do NV, An TT, Son NN (2003) Nuclear reactions with 14 MeV neutrons and bremsstrahlungs in giant dipole resonance (GDR) region using small accelerators. Nucl Phys A 722:568–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Marcinkowski A, Stankiewicz K, Garuska U, Herman M (1986) Cross sections of fast neutron induced reactions on molybdenum isotopes. Z Phys A323:91–96. Proceedings of the international conference on nuclear data for basic and applied science, Santa Fe, NM, USA (1985) 601 (EXFOR: 30809) Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Molla NI, Rahman MM, Khatun S, Fazlul Hoque AKM, Miah R, Khan AA (1986) Activation cross sections for some isotopes of Mg, Ti, V, Ni, Zr and Mo at 14 MeV neutrons. Bangladesh/IAEA report INDC(BAN)-003, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-ban-0003.pdf (EXFOR: 30825)
  176. 176.
    Muyao Z, Yongfa Z, Chuanshan W, Lu Z, Yitai C, Shuxin Z, Shenjun Z, Kuanzhong X, Shenmuo Z, Xueshi C, Yiping Z, Qinguan Y (1987) Shell effect from the cross section of the (n,2n) reaction produced by 14.6 MeV neutron. Chin J Nucl Phys 9:3 (EXFOR: 30755) Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Ikeda Y, Konno C, Oishi K, Nakamura T, Miyade H, Kawade K, Yamamoto H, Katoh T (1988) Activation cross section measurements for fusion reactor structural materials at neutron energy from 13.3 to 15.0 MeV using FNS facility. Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute report JAERI-1312 (EXFOR: 22089) Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Xiangzhong K, Yongchang W, Junqian Y, Xuezhi W, Jingkang Y, Jing W (1991) The cross section measurements for the Mo-100(n,2n)Mo-99, Mo-96(n,p)Nb-96 and Mo-92(n,α)Zr-89 m + g reactions. High Energy Phys Nucl Phys Chin 15:549 (EXFOR: 32579 #1) Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Osman KT, Habbani FI (1996) Measurement and study of (n,p) reaction cross sections for Cr, Ti, Ni, Co, Zr and Mo isotopes using 14.7 MeV neutrons. Sudan/IAEA report INDC(SUD)-001, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-sud-0001.pdf (EXFOR: 31464)
  180. 180.
    Reimer P, Avrigeanu V, Chuvaev SV, Filatenkov AA, Glodariu T, Koning AJ, Plompen AJM, Qaim SM, Smith DL, Weigmann H (2005) Reaction mechanisms of fast neutrons on stable Mo isotopes below 21 MeV. Phys Rev C 71:044617 (EXFOR: 22889) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Semkova V, Nolte R (2014) Measurement of neutron activation cross sections on Mo isotopes in the energy range from 7 MeV to 15 MeV. In: EPJ web of conferences, vol 66, p 03077Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Filatenkov AA (1999) Neutron activation cross sections measured at KRI in neutron energy region 13.4–14.9 MeV, Khlopin Radium Institute report KRI-252 (EXFOR: 41298). IAEA report INDC(CCP)-0460 Rev (2016) IAEA, Vienna, Austria. www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-ccp-0460-rev.pdf (EXFOR: 41614)
  183. 183.
    Huizenga JR, Clarke KM, Gindler JE, Vandenbosch R (1962) Photofission cross sections of several nuclei with mono-energetic gamma rays. Nucl Phys 34:439–456 (EXFOR: M0505); Manfredini A, Muchnik M, Fiore L, Ramorino C, De Carvalho HG, Lang J, Müller R (1965) 238U fission induced by low-energy monochromatic gamma rays: cross sections between 5 and 8 MeV. Nucl Phys 74:377–384 (EXFOR: M0535) Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Manfredini A, Muchnik M, Fiore L, Ramorino C, De Carvalho HG, Bösch R, Wölfli W (1966) Results on the cross section of 238U fission induced by low energy mono-energetic gamma rays. Nuovo Cimento B 44:218–221 (EXFOR: L0093) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Khan AM, Knowles JW (1972) Photofission of 232Th, 238U and 235U near threshold using a variable energy beam of γ rays. Nucl Phys A 179:333–352 (EXFOR: M0504) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Mafra OY, Kuniyoshi S, Goldemberg J (1972) Intermediate structure in the photoneutron and photofission cross sections in 238U and 232Th. Nucl Phys A 186:110–126 (EXFOR: M0433) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Bergere R, Beil H, Carlos B, Veyssiere A, Lepretre A (1972) Study of the giant resonance of fissile nuclei. In: Conference on nuclear structure studies, Sendai, Japan (1972), p 273 (EXFOR: L0082) Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Anderl RA, Hall JE, Morrison RC, Struss RG, Yester MV, Zaffarano DJ (1972) Compton scattered neutron capture gamma rays for photofission studies. Nucl Instrum Methods 102:101–108 (EXFOR: L0092); Anderl RA, Yester MV, Morrison RC (1973) Photofission cross sections of 238U and 235U from 5.0 MeV to 8.0 MeV. Nucl Phys A 212:221–240 (EXFOR: M0431) Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Veyssiere A, Beil H, Bergere R, Carlos P, Lepretre A (1973) A study of the photo-fission and photo-neutron processes in the giant dipole resonance of 232Th, 238U and 237Np. Nucl Phys A 199:45–64 (EXFOR: L0031) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Dickey PA, Axel P (1975) 238U and 232Th photofission and photoneutron emission near threshold. Phys Rev Lett 35:501–504 (EXFOR: L0081) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Caldwell JT, Dowdy EJ, Alvarez RA, Berman BL, Meyer P (1980) Experimental determination of photo-fission neutron multiplicities for 235U, 236U, 238U, and 232Th using monoenergetic photons. Nucl Sci Eng 73:153–163 (EXFOR: L0185) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Ries H, Mank G, Drexler J, Heil R, Huber K, Kneissl U, Ratzek R, Stroher H, Weber T, Wilke W (1984) Absolute photofission cross sections for 235,238U in the energy range 11.5–30 MeV. Phys Rev C 29:2346–2348 (EXFOR: M0503) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Lepretre A, Bergere R, Bourgeois P, Carlos P, Fagot J, Fallou JL, Garganne P, Veyssiere A, Ries H, Goble R, Kneissl U, Mank G, Stroher H, Wilke W, Ryckbosch D, Jury J (1987) Absolute photofission cross sections for 232Th and 235,238U measured with monochromatic tagged photons (20 MeV < E γ < 110 MeV). Nucl Phys A 472:533–557 (EXFOR: M0491) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Csige L, Filipescu DM, Glodariu T, Gulyas J, Gunther MM, Habs D, Karwowski HJ, Krasznahorkay A, Rich GC, Sin M, Stroe L, Tesileanu O, Thirolf PG (2013) Exploring the multi-humped fission barrier of 238U via sub-barrier photofission. Phys Rev C 87:044321 (EXFOR: L0179) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Dzhilavyan LZ, Nedorezov VG (2013) Photofission of 238U in the giant-resonance region. Phys At Nucl 76:1444–1451 (EXFOR: M0870) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Varlamov VV, Peskov NN (2007) Evaluation of (γ,xn), (γ,sn), (γ,n), (γ,2n), and (γ,f) reactions cross sections for actinide nuclei 232Th, 238U, 237Np, and 239Pu: consistency between data obtained using quasi-monoenergetic annihilation and bremsstrahlung photons, Moscow State University, Institute of Nuclear Physics report No. 2007, 8/829 (EXFOR: M0722) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

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.

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. T. Tárkányi
    • 1
  • A. V. Ignatyuk
    • 2
  • A. Hermanne
    • 3
  • R. Capote
    • 4
    Email author
  • B. V. Carlson
    • 5
  • J. W. Engle
    • 6
  • M. A. Kellett
    • 7
  • T. Kibedi
    • 8
  • G. N. Kim
    • 9
  • F. G. Kondev
    • 10
  • M. Hussain
    • 11
  • O. Lebeda
    • 12
  • A. Luca
    • 13
  • Y. Nagai
    • 14
  • H. Naik
    • 15
  • A. L. Nichols
    • 16
  • F. M. Nortier
    • 6
  • S. V. Suryanarayana
    • 15
  • S. Takács
    • 1
  • M. Verpelli
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Nuclear ResearchDebrecenHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Physics and Power Engineering (IPPE)ObninskRussia
  3. 3.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.NAPC-Nuclear Data SectionInternational Atomic Energy AgencyViennaAustria
  5. 5.Instituto Tecnológico de AeronáuticaSão José dos CamposBrazil
  6. 6.Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)Los AlamosUSA
  7. 7.Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel (LNHB)CEA SaclayGif-sur-YvetteFrance
  8. 8.Australian National University (ANU)CanberraAustralia
  9. 9.Kyungpook National UniversityDaeguRepublic of Korea
  10. 10.Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)LemontUSA
  11. 11.Government College UniversityLahorePakistan
  12. 12.Nuclear Physics InstituteRezCzech Republic
  13. 13.Horia Hulubei National Institute for R&D in Physics and Nuclear Engineering (IFIN-HH)MăgureleRomania
  14. 14.Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)Tokaimura NakaJapan
  15. 15.Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)Trombay, MumbaiIndia
  16. 16.University of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations