Recommended nuclear data for medical radioisotope production: diagnostic gamma emitters
 1.6k Downloads
 1 Citations
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 gammaray emitting radionuclides ^{51}Cr, ^{99m}Tc, ^{111}In, ^{123}I and ^{201}Tl. Recommended crosssection 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 modelindependent leastsquares 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 wwwnds.iaea.org/medical/gamma_emitters.html and also on the medical portal of the International Atomic Energy Agency/Nuclear Data Section (IAEANDS) wwwnds.iaea.org/medportal/.
Keywords
IAEA Coordinated Research Project Diagnostic medical isotopes γray emitters Crosssection evaluation Uncertainty estimation Padé fit Recommended σ and yield dataIntroduction
The production of diagnostic and therapeutic radionuclides for medical applications is a very important nonenergy related application of nuclear science and technology [1]. Such radionuclides are produced in both neutron and chargedparticle induced nuclear reactions, and the list of these reactions used for the generation of diagnostic radioisotopes (gammaray emitters for SPECT and β^{+} emitters for PET imaging) and employed to monitor these preparative procedures is long. Dedicated compilations and evaluations of production crosssection 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 (twentysix reactions to generate ^{11}C, ^{13}N, ^{15}O, ^{18}F, ^{67}Ga, ^{68}Ge/^{68}Ga, ^{81}Rb, ^{82}Sr, ^{111}In, ^{123}I, ^{123}Cs/^{123}Xe/^{123}I and ^{201}Pb/^{201}Tl), and a selection of twentytwo reactions used to monitor beam parameters during the irradiations. All results were published in IAEATECDOC1211 [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 crosssection data and the corresponding deduced yields. A second IAEA CRP was launched in 2003 to cover the production routes for established (^{103}Pd, ^{186}Re and ^{192}Ir) and emerging therapeutic radionuclides (^{64}Cu, ^{67}Cu, ^{67}Ga, ^{86}Y, ^{111}In, ^{114m}In, ^{124}I, ^{125}I, ^{169}Yb, ^{177}Lu, ^{211}At and ^{225}Ac) totalling thirtyfive reactions [7].
 (a)
Reevaluate those reactions for which important new data have been reported,
 (b)
Extend the list of potential radionuclides and their recommended excitation functions for medical applications,
 (c)
Determine uncertainties in the recommended crosssection data deduced from Padé fits on statistically consistent and critically selected datasets, and
 (d)
Reevaluate unreliable relevant decay data.
Sixteen laboratories and institutions from around the world collaborated in the project for which a fair number of specific reevaluations required additional crosssection and decaydata measurements, and these new experimental datasets were published elsewhere on a regular basis. All crosssection data were also reassessed 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 crosssection data. Results for direct and cumulative production routes, monoisotopic and enriched targets, and targets of naturallyoccurring 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 γemitting 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 reevaluated 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 modelindependent crosssection evaluations with uncertainties derived by leastsquares 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 twentyone chargedparticle induced reactions have been assessed on the basis of their compilation, evaluation and a wellrecognised data fitting procedure. These studies have involved the formation of five specific SPECT radionuclides selected for study in this CRP [8]: ^{51}Cr, ^{99}Mo^{/99m}Tc, ^{111}In, ^{123}I and ^{201}Tl. Several other reactions were also considered for the formation of ^{99}Mo induced by photon and neutron beams to assess the production of the extremely important ^{99}Mo/^{99m}Tc 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 wwwnds.iaea.org/medical/gamma_emitters.html and also at the IAEA medical portal wwwnds.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 TENDL2015 and TENDL2017 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 crosssection 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 leastsquares method (e.g., see review [11] and references therein). The leastsquares method is the stateofart Bayesian approach that combines all available knowledge to derive the evaluated result and corresponding uncertainties. Evaluations undertaken in this paper are in most cases modelindependent evaluations free from potential model defects and deficiencies. However, such an approach implies that comprehensive and consistent experimental inputs should be available before the leastsquare fit is undertaken. When the status of the experimental data is appropriate, a purely statistical fit over the selected data points can be performed.
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 meansquares 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 commerciallypurchased 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 beammonitor 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 remeasured. Another issue is that the recommended crosssection 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 crosssection dataset (i.e., halflife), 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 stackedfoil 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 beammonitoring 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 sourcetodetector 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
Reaction  Radionuclide  Halflife  Decay (%)  Eγ (keV), P_{γ} (%)  Product  Halflife  Decay (%), Eγ (keV), P_{γ} (%)  Production route 

^{68}Zn(p,2n)^{67}Ga ^{67}Zn(p,n)^{67}Ga  ^{67}Ga  3.2617 d  EC 100  93.310, 38.81; 184.576, 21.410; 300.217, 16.64  Direct  
^{nat}Kr(p,x)^{81}Rb ^{82}Kr(p,2n)^{81}Rb  ^{81m}Kr  13.10 s  IT 99.9975 EC 0.0025  190.46, 67.66  ^{81}Rb  4.572 h  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}27.2 190.46, 64.9; 446.15, 23.5  Parent 
^{111}Cd(p,n)^{111}In ^{112}Cd(p,2n)^{111}In  ^{111}In  2.8047 d  EC 100  171.28, 90.7; 245.35, 94.1  Direct  
^{124}Xe(p,2n)^{123}Cs  ^{123}I  13.2235 h  EC 100  158.97, 83.3  ^{123}Cs  5.88 min  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}72 97.39, 22.7; 596.6, 10.1  Grandparent 
^{124}Xe(p,pn)^{123}Xe ^{124}Xe(p,x)^{123}Xe ^{127}I(p,5n)^{123}Xe  ^{123}I  13.2235 h  EC 100  158.97, 83.3  ^{123}Xe  2.08 h  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}22.6 148.9, 48.9; 178.1, 14.9  Parent 
^{127}I(p,3n)^{125}Xe  ^{125}I  59.407 d  EC 100  27.202, 39.6 (X Kα2); 27.472, 73.1 (X Kα1)  ^{125}Xe  16.9 h  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}0.300 188.418, 53.8; 243.378, 30.0  Impurity, parent 
^{123}Te(p,n)^{123}I ^{124}Te(p,2n)^{123}I  ^{123}I  13.2235 h  EC 100  158.97, 83.3  Direct  
^{124}Te(p,n)^{124}I  ^{124}I  4.1760 d  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}22.7  602.73, 62.9; 722.78, 10.36; 1690.96, 11.15  Impurity, β^{+} emitter  
^{203}Tl(p,3n)^{201}Pb  ^{201}Tl  3.0421 d  EC 100  167.43, 10.00  ^{201}Pb  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 
^{203}Tl(p,4n)^{200}Pb  ^{200}Tl  26.1 h  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}0.401  367.942, 87; 579.300, 13.7  ^{200}Pb  21.5 h  EC 100 147.63, 38.2; 257.19, 4.52  Impurity, parent 
^{203}Tl(p,2n)^{202m}Pb  ^{202}Tl  12.31 d  EC 100  439.510, 91.5  ^{202m}Pb  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 crosssection 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 ^{99m}Tc and ^{51}Cr. New experimental data measurements since 2004 for production of ^{123}I, ^{111}In and ^{201}Tl 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 ^{99m}Tc and parent ^{99}Mo in medical applications, consideration has also been given to a number of different production routes including chargedparticle irradiations, neutroninduced reactions, and photon beams.
Decay data [19] and production routes of medical radionuclides under investigation—number of quoted digits for each quantity reflects the evaluated uncertainty
Radionuclide  Halflife  Decay (%)  Eγ (keV), Pγ (%)  Reaction  Product halflife  Decay (%) Eγ (keV), Pγ (%)  Fit  Production route 

Chargedparticle induced reactions  
^{51}Cr  27.704 d  EC 100  320.0824, 9.910  ^{51}V(p,n)^{51}Cr  Padé 12  Direct  
^{51}V(d,2n)^{51}Cr  Padé 12  Direct  
^{55}Mn(p,x)^{51}Cr  Padé 13  Cumulative  
^{55}Mn(d,x)^{51}Cr  Padé 4  Cumulative  
^{nat}Fe(p,x)^{51}Cr  Padé 21  Cumulative  
^{nat}Ti(α,x)^{51}Cr  Padé 11  Cumulative  
^{99m}Tc  6.0072 h  IT 99.9963 β^{−} 0.0037  140.511, 89  ^{100}Mo(p,x)^{99}Mo  65.924 h  β^{−} 100  Padé 23  Parent 
^{100}Mo(d,x)^{99}Mo  181.068, 6.05; 739.500, 12.20  Padé 6  Parent  
^{100}Mo(p,2n)^{99m}Tc  Padé 15  Direct  
^{100}Mo(d,3n)^{99m}Tc  Padé 6  Direct  
^{111}In  2.8047 d  EC 100  171.28, 90.7; 245.35, 94.1  ^{112}Cd(p,2n)^{111}In  Padé 9  Direct  
^{123}I  13.2235 h  EC 100  158.97, 83.3  ^{124}Xe(p,pn)^{123}Xe  2.08 h  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}22.6 148.9, 48.9; 178.1, 14.9  Padé 13  Parent 
^{124}Xe(p,2n)^{123}Cs  5.88 min  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}72 97.39, 22.7; 596.6, 10.1  Padé 13  Grandparent  
^{124}Xe(p,x)^{123}Xe  2.08 h  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}22.6 148.9, 48.9; 178.1, 14.9  Padé 16  Parent  
^{124}Xe(p,x)^{121}I  2.12 h  EC/β^{+} 100, β^{+}10.6 212.20, 84.3; 532.08, 6.1  Padé 18  Impurity  
^{201}Tl  3.0421 d  EC 100  167.43, 10.00  ^{203}Tl(p,3n)^{201}Pb  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 
^{203}Tl(p,4n)^{200}Pb  21.5 h  EC 100 147.63, 38.2; 257.19, 4.52  Padé 5  Impurity  
^{203}Tl(p,2n)^{202m}Pb  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 neutroninduced reactions  
^{99m}Tc  6.0072 h  β^{−} 0.0037,  140.511, 89  ^{100}Mo(γ,n)^{99}Mo  65.924 h  β^{−} 100  Padé 9  Parent 
IT 99.9963  ^{238}U(γ,f)^{99}Mo  181.068, 6.05; 739.500, 12.20  Padé 17  Parent  
^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo  BROND3.1 (75group)  Parent  
^{100}Mo(n,2n)^{99}Mo  Padé 19  Parent 
Presentation of results

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,

Crosssection 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 ^{96m}Tc 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.
Chargedparticle induced reactions
Reactions for the production of ^{51}Cr (T _{1/2} = 27.701 d)
Applications rather longlived ^{51}Cr is used to label red blood cells, and quantify gastrointestinal protein loss and glomerular filtration rate (especially in paediatrics).
Evaluations have been made of the ^{51}V(p,n)^{51}Cr, ^{51}V(d,2n)^{51}Cr, ^{55}Mn(p,x)^{51}Cr, ^{55}Mn(d,x)^{51}Cr, ^{nat}Fe(p,x)^{51}Cr, and ^{nat}Ti(α,x)^{51}Cr reactions.
^{51}V(p,n)^{51}Cr
^{51}V(d,2n)^{51}Cr
^{55}Mn(p,x)^{51}Cr
^{55}Mn(d,x)^{51}Cr
^{nat}Fe(p,x)^{51}Cr
^{nat}Ti(α,x)^{51}Cr
Integral yields for ^{51}Cr formation
Reactions for the production of ^{99m}Tc (T_{1/2} = 6.0072 h)
Applications^{99m}Tc 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.
^{99m}Tc is the γemitting workhorse of diagnostic nuclear medicine (constitutes more than 70% of imaging procedures performed worldwide). Commercially distributed in the form of ^{99}Mo/^{99m}Tc generators whereby all ^{99}Mo is obtained from the fission of ^{235}U within thermal research reactors (^{99}Mo T_{1/2} = 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 chargedparticle induced reactions by means of particle accelerators and photoninduced reactions by means of electron linear accelerators (linac).
Production routes under investigation

Indirect production via the ^{99}Mo/^{99m}Tc generator based on the ^{100}Mo(p,x)^{99}Mo and ^{100}Mo(d,x)^{99}Mo chargedparticle reactions (see below); ^{100}Mo(n,2n)^{99}Mo and ^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo radiative neutron capture in reactors, and photoninduced reactions by means of linacs ^{100}Mo(γ,n)^{99}Mo and ^{238}U(γ,f)^{99}Mo (all four of these routes are analysed and discussed in the subsection entitled “^{99m}Tc and parent ^{99}Mo: photoninduced and neutroninduced reactions”).

Direct production by means of the ^{100}Mo(p,2n)^{99m}Tc and ^{100}Mo(d,3n)^{99m}Tc reactions (see below).
^{100}Mo(p,x)^{99}Mo
^{100}Mo(d,x)^{99}Mo
^{100}Mo(p,2n)^{99m}Tc
^{100}Mo(d,3n)^{99m}Tc
Integral yields for ^{99}Mo and ^{99m}Tc formation using proton/deuteron accelerators
Reaction for the production of ^{111}In (T_{1/2} = 2.8047 d)
Applications^{111}In is used for specialist diagnostic studies, such as the brain, colon transit, and infection. Also has been identified as a suitable candidate for radiotherapy.
^{112}Cd(p,2n)^{111}In
Integral yield for ^{111}In formation
Reactions for the production of ^{123}I (T_{1/2} = 13.2235 h)
Applications^{123}I 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 ^{124}I β^{+} emitter, and for radiotherapy in conjunction with ^{131}I β^{−} emitter.
Production routes for ^{123}I that employ tellurium and ^{124}Xe targets were evaluated as part of an earlier CRP [2, 3]. Following on from these studies, reevaluations have been made of a selection of nuclear reactions related to the production of ^{123}I precursors by protoninduced reactions on ^{124}Xe targets: ^{124}Xe(p,2n)^{123}Cs, ^{124}Xe(p,pn)^{123}Xe, and ^{124}Xe(p,x)^{123}Xe. Furthermore, an assessment has also been made of the formation of ^{121}I impurity by means of the ^{124}Xe(p,x)^{121}I reaction which limits the shelflife of ^{123}I.
^{124}Xe(p,2n)^{123}Cs
^{124}Xe(p,pn)^{123}Xe
^{124}Xe(p,x)^{123}Xe
^{124}Xe(p,x)^{121}I (reaction for generation of ^{121}I impurity)
Unavoidable contamination of ^{123}I by ^{121}I (T_{1/2} = 2.12 h, daughter product of coproduced ^{121}Cs^{121}Xe that decays to longlived ^{121}Te) by means of the reaction processes discussed above limits the shelflife of batches of ^{123}I [115].
Integral yields for ^{123}Cs–^{123}Xe (grandparent and parent of ^{123}I) and ^{121}I impurity formation
Reactions for the production of ^{201}Tl (T_{1/2} = 3.0421 d)
Applications^{201}Tl has been used for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarct and heart muscle death, and to locate lowgrade lymphomas.
Present commercial production is through the EC/β^{+} decay of parent ^{201}Pb obtained by means of the ^{203}Tl(p,3n)^{201}Pb reaction (adoption of 95% enriched ^{203}Tl targets) and double Tl–Pb separation chemistry. Quantitative knowledge of the unavoidable and simultaneous production of ^{200}Pb and ^{202m}Pb via the ^{203}Tl(p,4n)^{200}Pb and ^{203}Tl(p,2n)^{202m}Pb reactions is important from the point of view of radionuclidic purity (limits defined in pharmacopoeia).
^{203}Tl(p,3n)^{201}Pb
^{203}Tl(p,4n)^{200}Pb (impurity reaction)
^{203}Tl(p,2n)^{202m}Pb (impurity reaction)
Integral yields for ^{201}Tl formation
^{99m}Tc and parent ^{99}Mo: photoninduced and neutroninduced reactions
Consideration was given to various nonchargedparticle reactions for the production of parent ^{99}Mo to generate ^{99m}Tc, which involved the irradiation of particular molybdenum targets with photons or neutrons as well as the ^{238}U(γ,f) reaction.
^{100}Mo(γ,n)^{99}Mo
^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo
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 TENDL2017 definition of this particular neutroncapture cross section is shown in Fig. 46 as a 75group assembly [10]. This TENDL2017 evaluation below 100 keV coincides closely with the ENDF/BVII.1 [128], JEFF3.2 [156], JENDL4.0 [157], and BROND3.1 [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 highresolution 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].
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 multigroup cross sections to achieve this objective. Such an approach is described in detail in Ref. [158], and these estimated uncertainties for the ^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo reaction are shown in Fig. 47 (righthand scale).
^{100}Mo(n,2n)^{99}Mo
^{238}U(γ,f)^{99}Mo

(6.17 ± 0.86)% in the ENDF/BVII.1 library,

(5.65 ± 0.73)% in the NEAOECD JEFF3.2 library, and

6.12%, without any uncertainties in the Japanese JENDL4.0 library.
Integral yields for production of ^{99}Mo by gammaray and neutroninduced reactions
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 IAEANDS recommended crosssection database for the production of specific gammaemitting radionuclides. Evaluations of production cross sections and their uncertainties were performed on twentytwo reactions for direct, indirect and generator production of ^{51}Cr, ^{99}Mo/^{99m}Tc and ^{99m}Tc, ^{111}In, ^{123}Cs/^{123}Xe/^{123}I (and ^{121}I impurity), and ^{201}Pb/^{201}Tl (and ^{200}Pb and ^{202m}Pb impurities).
Additional production routes for ^{51}Cr, ^{99m}Tc and ^{123}I were explored, and some earlier evaluated nuclear reactions to produce ^{111}In and ^{201}Tl were also redefined. A Padé fitting method was applied to the selected datasets, and uncertainties in all of the recommended crosssection 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 TENDL2015 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 deuteroninduced 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 crosssection 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 wellmeasured 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 ^{123}I with ^{124}Xe targets, and ^{201}Tl with ^{203}Tl 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 wwwnds.iaea.org/medical/gamma_emitters.html and also at the IAEA medical portal wwwnds.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 nonenergy related nuclear studies (e.g., activation analysis and thin layer activation).
Footnotes
 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. DEAC06CH11357.
References
 1.Qaim SM (1982) Nuclear data relevant to cyclotron produced shortlived medical radioisotopes. Radiochim Acta 30:147–162; Qaim SM, Stöcklin G (1983) Production of some medically important shortlived neutrondeficient radioisotopes of halogens. Radiochim Acta 34:25–40; Qaim SM (1986) Recent developments in the production of ^{18}F, ^{75,76,77}Br and ^{123}I. 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.Obložinský P (1995) First research coordination meeting on development of reference charged particle crosssection database for medical radioisotope production. IAEA report INDC(NDS)349, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0349.pdf
 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 crosssection database for medical radioisotope production: diagnostic radioisotopes and monitor reactions. IAEA technical report IAEATECDOC1211, May 2001, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/tecdocs/iaeatecdoc1211.pdf
 4.IAEA charged particle cross section database for medical radioisotope production, updated 2003–2004. wwwnds.iaea.org/medical/. See also the IAEA medical portal at wwwnds.iaea.org/medportal/
 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.Takács S, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A (2005) Validation and upgrading of the recommended crosssection data of charged particle reactions: gamma emitter radioisotopes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 240:790–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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 JC, 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. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/tecdocs/stidoc0100473/
 8.Nichols AL, Capote R (2013) Summary report of first research coordination meeting on nuclear data for chargedparticle monitor reactions and medical isotope production, 3–7 December 2012, IAEA Headquarters, IAEA report INDC(NDS)0630, February 2013, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0630.pdf; Nichols AL, Capote R, Nortier FM (2015) Summary report of second research coordination meeting on nuclear data for chargedparticle monitor reactions and medical isotope production, 8–12 December 2014, IAEA Headquarters, IAEA report INDC(NDS)0675, April 2015, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0675.pdf; Nichols AL, Nortier FM, Capote R (2017) Summary report of third research coordination meeting on nuclear data for chargedparticle monitor reactions and medical isotope production, 30 May–3 June 2016, IAEA Headquarters, IAEA report INDC(NDS)0717, January 2017, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0717.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.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 chargedparticle monitor reactions. Nucl Data Sheets 148:338–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 10.Koning AJ, Rochman D, Kopecký J, Sublet JC, 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) TENDL2015: TALYSbased evaluated nuclear data library. tendl.web.psi.ch/tendl_2015/tendl2015.html. TENDL2017: TALYSbased evaluated nuclear data library. tendl.web.psi.ch/tendl_2017/tendl2017.html
 11.Capote R, Smith DL, Trkov A (2010) Nuclear data evaluation methodology including estimates of covariances. EPJ Web Conf 8:04001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.GravesMorris PR (ed) (1973) Padé approximants and their applications. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
 14.Baker Jr GA (1975) Essentials of Padé approximants. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
 15.Vinogradov VN, Gai EV, Rabotnov NS (1987) Analytical approximation of data in nuclear and neutron physics. Energoatomizdat, MoscowGoogle Scholar
 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.Badikov SA, Gai EV (2003) Some sources of the underestimation of evaluated crosssection uncertainties. IAEA report INDC(NDS)438, pp 117–129, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0438.pdf
 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.NuDat, NNDC, Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA. Decay data retrieval code. www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/
 20.Johnson CH, Galonsky A, Ulrich JP (1958) Proton strength functions from (p,n). Phys Rev 109:1243–1254 (EXFOR: T0122) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 21.Albert RD (1959) (p,n) cross section and proton opticalmodel parameters in the 4–5.5 MeV energy region. Phys Rev 115:925–927 (EXFOR: T0130) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.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.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.Hansen LF, Albert RD (1962) Statistical theory predictions for 5 to 11MeV (p,n) and (p,p’) nuclear reactions in ^{51}V, ^{59}Co, ^{63}Cu, ^{65}Cu and ^{103}Rh. Phys Rev 128:291–299 (EXFOR: B0066) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 26.Taketani H, Alford WP (1962) (p,n) cross sections on Ti^{47}, V^{51}, Cr^{52}, Co^{59}, and Cu^{63} from 4 to 6.5 MeV. Phys Rev 125:291–294 (EXFOR: B0051) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 27.Wing J, Huizenga JR (1962) (p,n) cross sections of V^{51}, Cr^{52}, Cu^{63}, Cu^{65}, Ag^{107}, Ag^{109}, Cd^{111}, Cd^{114} and La^{139} from 5 to 10.5 MeV. Phys Rev 128:280–290 (EXFOR: T0124) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.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.Johnson CH, Trail CC, Galonsky A (1964) Thresholds for (p,n) reactions on 26 intermediateweight nuclei. Phys Rev 136:B1719–B1729 (EXFOR: T0126) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Harris KK, Grench HA, Johnson RG, Vaughn FJ (1965) The V^{51}(p,n)Cr^{51} reaction as a neutron source of known intensity. Nucl Instrum Methods 33:257–260 (EXFOR: T0030) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Gadioli E, Grassi Strini AM, Bianco GL, Strini G, Tagliaferri G (1974) Excitation functions of ^{51}V, ^{56}Fe, ^{65}Cu(p,n) reactions between 10 and 45 MeV. Nuovo Cimento A 22:547–558 (EXFOR: B0027) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Mehta MK, Kailas S, Sekharan KK (1977) Total (p,n) reaction crosssection study on V51 over incident energyrange 1.56–5.53 MeV. Pramana 9:419–434 (EXFOR: D6059) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 37.Michel R, Brinkmann G, Weigel H, Herr W (1979) Measurement and hybridmodel analysis of protoninduced reactions with V, Fe and Co. Nucl Phys A 322:40–60 (EXFOR: A0146) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 38.Michel R, Brinkmann G (1980) On the depthdependent production of radionuclides (44 ≤ A≤59) by solar protons in extraterrestrial matter. J Radioanal Chem 59:467–510 (EXFOR: A0145) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 39.Zyskind JL, Barnes CA, Davidson JM, Fowler WA, Marrs RE, Shapiro MH (1980) Competition effects in protoninduced reactions on V51. Nucl Phys A 343:295–314 (EXFOR: C0627) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Kailas S, Gupta SK, Kerekatte SS, Fernandes CV (1985) V51(p,n)Cr51 reaction from E _{p} 1.9 to 4.5 MeV. Pramana 24:629–635 (EXFOR: A0332) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 42.Michel R, Peiffer F, Stück R (1985) Measurement and hybrid model analysis of integral excitationfunctions for protoninduced reactions on vanadium, manganese and cobalt up to 200 MeV. Nucl Phys A 441:617–639 (EXFOR: A0100) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 43.Bastos MAV, Debritto JLQ, Vinagre UM, Dasilva AG (1990) A production method for Cr51 at IEN’s cyclotron. Radiochim Acta 50:189–191 (EXFOR: D0699) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 44.Jung P (1992) Cross sections for the production of helium and longliving 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.Levkovskij VN (1991) The crosssections of activation of nuclides of middlerange mass (A = 40–100) by protons and αparticles of middle range energies (E = 10–50 MeV). INTERVESTI, Moscow (EXFOR: A0510) Google Scholar
 46.Wenrong Z, Hanlin L, Weixiang Y (1994) Excitation function of V51(p,n)Cr51 up to 22 MeV. Chin J Nucl Phys 16:67 (EXFOR: S0042) Google Scholar
 47.Musthafa MM, Sharma MK, Singh BP, Prasad R (2005) Measurement and analysis of cross sections for (p,n) reactions in V51 and In113. Appl Radiat Isot 62:419–428 (EXFOR: O1237) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 48.Solieman AHM, AlAbyad M, Ditrói F, Saleh ZA (2016) Experimental and theoretical study for the production of ^{51}Cr using p, d, ^{3}He and ^{4}He projectiles on V, Ti and Cr targets. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 366:19–27 (EXFOR: D4339) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 49.Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Hermanne A (2016) Activation crosssections 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.Weinreich R, Probst HJ, Qaim SM (1980) Production of chromium48 for applications in life sciences. Appl Radiat Isot 31:223–232 (EXFOR: A0169) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 51.Jung P (1987) Helium production and longterm activation by protons and deuterons in metals for fusion reactor application. J Nucl Mater 144:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 52.Wenrong Z, Hanlin L, Weixiang Y (1992) Cross section measurement for V51(d,2n)Cr51 reaction. Chin J Nucl Phys 14:309 (EXFOR: S0039) Google Scholar
 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.Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Takács S, Hermanne A, Baba M, Ignatyuk AV (2011) Investigation of activation crosssections of deuteron induced reactions on vanadium up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 269:1792–1800 (EXFOR: D4246) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 55.Michel R, Bodemann R, Busemann H, Daunke R, Gloris M, Lange HJ, Klug B, Krins A, Leya I, Lupke M, Neumann S, Reinhardt H, SchnatzButtgen M, Herpers U, Schiekel Th, Sudbrock F, Holmqvist B, Conde H, Malmborg P, Suter M, DittrichHannen B, Kubik PW, Synal HA (1997) Cross sections for the production of residual nuclides by low and mediumenergy protons from the target elements C, N, O, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Mn, Fe Co, Ni, Cu, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Ba and Au. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 129:153–193 (EXFOR: O0276) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 56.AlAbyad 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 Fe55, Mn54 and Cr51. Appl Radiat Isot 68:2393–2397 (EXFOR: D0632) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 57.Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Hermanne A, Yamazaki H, Baba M, Mohammadi A (2013) Activation crosssections 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.Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Takács S, Hermanne A, Yamazaki H, Baba M, Mohammadi A, Ignatyuk AV (2011) Activation crosssections of deuteron induced reactions on manganese up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 269:1878–1883 (EXFOR: D4247) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.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.Brodzinski RL, Rancitelli LA, Cooper JA, Wogman NA (1971) Highenergy proton spallation of iron. Phys Rev C 4:1257–1265 (EXFOR: C0272) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.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.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.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.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.Sisterson JM, Vincent J (2006) Cross section measurements for protoninduced reactions in Fe and Ni producing relatively shortlived radionuclides at E _{p} = 140–500 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B251:1–8 (EXFOR: C1447) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 68.AlAbyad M, Comsan MNH, Qaim SM (2009) Excitation functions of protoninduced reactions on ^{nat}Fe and enriched ^{57}Fe with particular reference to the production of ^{57}Co. Appl Radiat Isot 67:122–128 (EXFOR: D0500) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 69.Kim K, Khandaker MU, Naik H, Kim G (2014) Excitation functions of proton induced reactions on ^{nat}Fe in the energy region up to 45 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 322:63–69 (EXFOR: D7007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 70.Graves SA, Ellison PA, Barnhart TE, Valdovinos HF, Birnbaum ER, Nortier FM, Nickles RJ, Engle JW (2016) Nuclear excitation functions of protoninduced reactions (E _{p} = 3590 MeV) from Fe, Cu and Al. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 386:44–53 (EXFOR: C22430) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
 71.Iguchi A, Amano H, Tanaka S (1960) (α,n) cross sections for ^{48}Ti and ^{51}V. J At Energy Soc Jpn 2:682–684 (EXFOR: E1930) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 72.Vonach H, Haight RC, Winkler G (1983) (α,n) and total αreaction cross sections for ^{48}Ti and ^{51}V. Phys Rev C 28:2278–2285 (EXFOR: C0318) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 73.Chang CN, Kent JJ, Morgan JF, Blatt SL (1973) Total cross section measurements by Xray detection of electroncapture of residual activity. Nucl Instrum Methods 109:327–331 (EXFOR: C0951) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 74.Michel R, Brinkmann G, Stück R (1983) Integral excitation functions of αinduced reactions on titanium, iron and nickel. Radiochim Acta 32:173–189 (EXFOR: A0148) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 75.Morton AJ, Tims SG, Scott AF (1992) The ^{48}Ti(α,n)^{51}Cr and ^{48}Ti(α,p)^{51}V cross sections. Nucl Phys A 128:167–182 (EXFOR: D0061) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 76.Tárkányi F, Szelecsényi F, Kopecký P (1992) Cross section data for proton, ^{3}He and αparticle induced reactions on ^{nat}Ni, ^{nat}Cu and ^{nat}Ti 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.Peng X, He F, Long X (1998) Excitation functions for the reactions induced by alphaparticle impact of natural titanium. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 140:9–12 (EXFOR: O1074) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 78.Hermanne A, Sonck M, Takács S, Szelecsényi F, Tárkányi F (1999) Excitation functions of alpha particle induced reactions on ^{nat}Ti 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.Baglin CM, Norman ER, Larimer RM, Rech GA (2004) Measurement of ^{107}Ag(α,γ)^{111}In 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.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.Király B, Takács S, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A (2007) Cross section measurements on Er, Nb and Yb, private communication (2007)Google Scholar
 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.Uddin MS, Scholten B (2016) Excitation functions of alpha particle induced reactions on ^{nat}Ti up to 40 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B380:15–19 (EXFOR: O2304) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 84.LagunasSolar MC, Kiefer PM, Carvacho OF, Lagunas CA, Cha YP (1991) Cyclotron production of NCA ^{99m}Tc and ^{99}Mo: an alternative nonreactor supply source of instant ^{99m}Tc and ^{99}Mo → ^{99m}Tc generators. Appl Radiat Isot 42:643–657 (EXFOR: C0068) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 85.Scholten B, Lambrecht RM, Cogneau M, Vera Ruiz H, Qaim SM (1999) Excitation functions for the cyclotron production of ^{99m}Tc and ^{99}Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 51:69–80 (EXFOR: O0737) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 86.Takács S, Szûcs Z, Tárkányi F, Hermanne A, Sonck M (2003) Evaluation of protoninduced reactions on ^{100}Mo: new cross sections for the production of ^{99m}Tc and ^{99}Mo. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 257:195–201 (EXFOR: D4115) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 87.Uddin MS, Hagiwara M, Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Baba M (2004) Experimental studies on the protoninduced activation reactions of molybdenum in the energy range 22–67 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 60:911–920 (EXFOR: E1894) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 88.Khandaker MU, Uddin MS, Kim KS, Lee YS, Kim GN (2007) Measurement of crosssections for the (p,xn) reactions in natural molybdenum. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 262:171–181 (EXFOR: D0446) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 89.Lebeda O, Pruszyński M (2010) New measurement of excitation functions for (p,x) reactions on natMo with special regard to the formation of ^{95m}Tc, ^{96m+g}Tc, ^{99m}Tc and ^{99}Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 68:2355–2365 (EXFOR: D0615) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 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 crosssection study for the production of Mo and Tc radioisotopes via proton induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Mo. In: Singh N (ed) Medicine diagnostics radioisotopes—applications in biomedical science. InTech, Croatia, pp 3–26 (EXFOR: C2157). ISBN 9789533077482Google Scholar
 91.Chodash P, Angell CT, Benitez J, Norman EB, Pedretti M, Shugart H, Swanberg E, Yee R (2011) Measurement of excitation functions for the ^{nat}Mo(d,x)^{99}Mo and ^{nat}Mo(p,x)^{99}Mo reactions. Appl Radiat Isot 69:1447–1452 (EXFOR: C1871) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 92.Gagnon K, Bénard F, Kovacs M, Ruth TJ, Schafferd P, Wilson JS, McQuarrie SA (2011) Cyclotron production of 99mTc: experimental measurement of the ^{100}Mo(p,x)^{99}Mo, ^{99m}Tc and ^{99g}Tc excitation functions from 8 to 18 MeV. Nucl Med Biol 38:907–916 (EXFOR: C2156) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 93.Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Takács S, Ignatyuk AV (2012) Investigation of activation crosssections of proton induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Mo up to 40 MeV: new data and evaluation. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 280:45–73 (EXFOR: D4264) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 94.Manenti S, Holzwarth U, Loriggiola M, Gini L, Esposito J, Groppi F, Simonelli F (2014) The excitation functions of ^{100}Mo(p,x)^{99}Mo and ^{100}Mo(p,2n)^{99m}Tc. Appl Radiat Isot 94:344–348 (EXFOR: O2263) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 95.Takács S, Hermanne A, Ditrói F, Tárkányi F, Aikawa M (2015) Reexamination of cross sections of the ^{100}Mo(p,2n)^{99m}Tc reaction. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 347:26–38 (EXFOR: D4322) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 96.Červenák J, Lebeda O (2016) Experimental crosssections for protoninduced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Mo. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 380:32–49 (EXFOR: D0805) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 97.Sonck M, Takács S, Szelecsényi F, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F (1999) Excitation function of deuteron induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Mo and ^{100}Mo(90%) up to 50 MeV: an alternative route for the production of ^{99}Mo. 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.Lebeda O, Fikrle M (2010) New measurement of excitation functions for (d,x) reactions on natMo with special regard to the formation of ^{95m}Tc, ^{96m+g}Tc, ^{99m}Tc and ^{99}Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 68:2425–2432 (EXFOR: D0631) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 99.Tárkányi F, Hermanne A, Takács S, Sonck M, Szûcs Z, Király B, Ignatyuk AV (2011) Investigation of alternative production routes of ^{99m}Tc: deuteron induced reactions on ^{100}Mo. Appl Radiat Isot 69:18–25 (EXFOR: D4235) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 100.Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Takács S, Király B, Hermanne A, Sonck M, Baba M, Ignatyuk AV (2012) Investigation of activation crosssections 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.LagunasSolar MC, Zeng NX, Mirshad I, GreyMorgan T (1996) An update on the direct production of ^{99m}Tc with proton beams and enriched ^{100}Mo targets. Trans Am Nucl Soc 74:137 (EXFOR: C0963) Google Scholar
 102.Khandaker MU, Moinul Haque Meaze AKM, Kim K, Son D, Kim GN (2006) Measurements of the protoninduced reaction crosssections of ^{nat}Mo by using the MC50 cyclotron at the Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences. J Korean Phys Soc 48:821–826Google Scholar
 103.Sonck M, Takács S, Szelecsényi F, Hermanne A, Tárkányi F (1997) Excitation functions of deuteron induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Mo up to 21 MeV: an alternative route for the production of ^{94m, 99m}Tc and ^{99}Mo. 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.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.Nieckarz Jr WJ, Caretto Jr AA (1969) Production of ^{111}In and ^{114m}In from the separated isotopes of cadmium using 70 to 400MeV protons. Phys Rev 178:1887–1893 (EXFOR: C0345) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Nortier FM, Mills SJ, Steyn GF (1990) Excitation functions and production rates of relevance to the production of ^{111}In by proton bombardment of ^{nat}Cd and ^{nat}In up to 100 MeV. Appl Radiat Isot 41:1201–1208 (EXFOR: A0500) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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 ^{111}Cd and ^{112}Cd for the production of ^{111}In for use in nuclear medicine. Appl Radiat Isot 45:239–249 (EXFOR: D4027) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 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 crosssections on cadmium: proton induced nuclear reactions up to 80 MeV. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 245:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 110.Khandaker MU, Kim K, Lee MW, Kim KS, Kim GN, Cho YS, Lee YO (2008) Production crosssections for the residual radionuclides from the ^{nat}Cd(p,x) nuclear processes. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 266:4877–4887 (EXFOR: D0516) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 111.AlSaleh FS (2008) Cross sections of proton induced nuclear reactions on natural cadmium leading to the formation of radionuclides of indium. Radiochim Acta 96:461–465 (EXFOR: D0467) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 112.Hermanne A, AdamRebeles R, Van den Winkel P, Tárkányi F, Takács S (2014) Production of ^{111}In and ^{114m}In by proton induced reactions: an update on excitation functions, chemical separationpurification and recovery of target material. Radiochim Acta 102:1111–1126 (EXFOR: D4320) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 113.Kurenkov NV, Malinin AB, Sebyakin AA, Venikov NI (1989) Excitation functions of protoninduced nuclear reactions on ^{124}Xe: production of ^{123}I. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 135:39–50 (EXFOR: A0436) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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 ^{123}I in proton induced nuclear reactions on highly enriched ^{124}Xe. Appl Radiat Isot 42:221–228 (EXFOR: D4029) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 115.Hermanne A, Tárkányi F, Takács S, AdamRebeles R, Ignatyuk A, Spellerberg S, Schweikert R (2011) Limitation of the longlived ^{121}Te contaminant in production of ^{123}I through the ^{124}Xe(p,x) route. Appl Radiat Isot 69:358–368 (EXFOR: D4238) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 116.Sakai M, Ikegama H, Yamazaki T, Saito K (1965) Nuclear structure of Hg^{200}. Nucl Phys 65:177–202; see also data file in Physics Data number 155 (1982) 013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 117.Lebowitz G, Greene MW, Fairchild R, BradleyMoore PR, Atkins HL, Ansari AN, Richards P, Belgrave E (1975) Thallium201 for medical use. J Nucl Med 16:151–155 (EXFOR: C1028) PubMedGoogle Scholar
 118.LagunasSolar MC, Jungerman JA, Peek NF, Theus RM (1978) Thallium201 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.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.Qaim SM, Weinreich R, Ollig H (1979) Production of ^{201}Tl and ^{203}Pb via proton induced nuclear reactions on natural thallium. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 30:85–95 (EXFOR: A0185) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 121.Bonardi M, Birattari C, Salomone A (1983) ^{201}Tl 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 of^{203}Pb compounds for studies on pathways and effects of lead pollution. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 26:267–277Google Scholar
 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, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 616–618 [also private communication from authors (EXFOR: A0494)]Google Scholar
 123.AlSaleh FS, AlHarbi 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 ^{201}Tl and ^{203}Pb. Radiochim Acta 9:127–132 (EXFOR: O1509) Google Scholar
 124.Tárkányi F, Ditrói F, Hermanne A, Takács S, AdamRebeles R, Walravens N, Cichelli O, Ignatyuk AV (2013) Investigation of activation crosssections of proton induced nuclear reactions on ^{nat}Tl up to 42 MeV: review, new data and evaluation. Appl Radiat Isot 74:109–122 (EXFOR: D4277) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
 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.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.Utsunomiya H, Goriely S, Kondo T, Iwamoto C, Akimune H, Yamagata T, Toyokawa H, Harada H, Kitatani F, Lui YW, 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.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/BVII.1 nuclear data for science and technology: cross sections, covariances, fission product yields and decay data. Nucl Data Sheets 112:2887–2996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Gleason G (1977) Thermal neutron (n,γ) cross sections and resonance integrals: Part 2, private communication (EXFOR: 10662) Google Scholar
 131.Kurosawa M, Shimizu K (1979) Estimation for production of Molybdenum99 using (n,γ) reaction. J At Energy Soc Jpn 21:505–509 (EXFOR: 21584) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 132.Wyrick JM, Poenitz WP (1982) Neutroncaptureactivation cross sections of 94, 96Zr and 98, 100Mo at thermal and 30 keV energy. Conf Rep Argonne Natl Lab Rep Ser 4(83):196 (EXFOR: 12831) Google Scholar
 133.Nguyen VD, Pham DK, Kim TT, Bui VL, Rahman MS, Kim KS, Kim G, Oh Y, Lee HS, Cho MH, Ko IS, Namkung W (2009) Thermal neutron crosssection and resonance integral of the ^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo reaction. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 267:462–468 (EXFOR: 31656) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 134.El Abd A (2010) Measurements of the thermal neutron crosssections and resonance integrals for ^{186}W(n,γ)^{187}W and ^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo reactions. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 284:321–326 (EXFOR: 31693) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 135.Farina Arbocco F, Vermaercke P, Smits K, Sneyers L, Strijckmans K (2013) Experimental determination of k_{0}, Q_{0}, <E_{r}> factors and neutron crosssections for 41 isotopes of interest in neutron activation analysis. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 296:931–938 (EXFOR: 23266) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 136.Macklin RL, Lazar NH, Lyon WS (1957) Neutron activation cross sections with SbBe neutrons. Phys Rev 107:504–508 (EXFOR: 11399) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Vervier JF (1958/1959) Section efficace de capture radiative pour des neutrons d`une source SbBe. Nucl Phys 9:569–576 (EXFOR: 20205) Google Scholar
 139.Hasan SS, Chaubey AK, Sehgal ML (1968) Study of the average level spacing from neutroncapture crosssection. Nuovo Cimento B 58:402–406 (EXFOR: 30077) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.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.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.Anand RP, Jhingan ML, Bhattacharya D, Kondaiah E (1979) 25 keVneutron capture crosssections. Nuovo Cimento A 50:247–257 (EXFOR: 30390) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 144.Lyon WS, Macklin RL (1959) Neutron activation at 195 keV. Phys Rev 114:1619–1620 (EXFOR: 11399; EXFOR: 11407) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 145.Weston LW, Seth KK, Bilpuch EG, Newson HW (1960) Neutron capture cross sections in the keV region. Part II. Spinorbit coupling and the optical model. Ann Phys 10:477–489 (EXFOR: 11818) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Peto G, Milligy Z, Hunyadi I (1967) Radiative capture crosssections for 3 MeV neutrons. J Nucl Energy 21:797–801 (EXFOR: 30031) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Dovbenko AG, Kolesov VE, Koroleva VP, Tolstikov VA (1969) Cross section of Mn55, Ga69, Ga71 and Mo98 for radiative capture of fast neutrons. Sov At Energy 26:82 (EXFOR: 40001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.Trofimov JN, Nemilov JA (1984) Mo98 radiation capture crosssection for neutron energy range 0.3–2 MeV. Vop At Nauki Tekhn Ser Yadernye Konstanty 1984(3/57):15 (EXFOR: 40855) Google Scholar
 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 Mo98(n,γ)Mo99 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, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 370–372Google Scholar
 153.Blinov MV, Chuvaev SV, Filatenkov AA, Jakovlev VA, RimskiKorsakov 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. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcnds0342.pdf (EXFOR: 41406)
 154.Bhike M, Saxena A, Roy BJ, Choudhury RK, Kailas S, Ganesan S (2009) Measurement of ^{67}Zn(n,p)^{67}Cu, ^{92}Mo(n,p)^{92m}Nb, and ^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo 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 ^{232}Th(n,γ)^{233}Th, ^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo, ^{186}W(n,γ)^{187}W, ^{115}In(n,γ)^{116m} ^{1}In, and ^{92}Mo(n,p)^{92m}Nb cross sections in the energy range of 1.6 to 3.7 MeV. Nucl Sci Eng 170:44–53 (EXFOR: 33038) Google Scholar
 155.Uddin MS, Afroze N, Hossain SM, Zakaria AKM, Islam MA (2015) Measurement of cross section of the ^{98}Mo(n,γ)^{99}Mo reaction using monochromatic thermal neutrons. Radiochim Acta 103:85–90 (EXFOR: 31757) Google Scholar
 156.International collaboration of Data Bank member countries coordinated by the JEFF Scientific Coordination Group, The JEFF3.2 Nuclear Data Library, NEA OECD, Paris. www.oecdnea.org/dbforms/data/eva/evatapes/jeff_32/. Accessed 5 March 2014
 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) JENDL40: a new library for nuclear science and engineering. J Nucl Sci Technol 48:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 158.Blokhin AI, Gai EV, Ignatyuk AV, Koba II, Manokhin VN, Pronyaev VG (2016) New version of the neutron data library BROND3.1. Vop At Nauki Tekhn Ser Nucl React Constants 2(2):62–93. https://vant.ippe.ru/en/brond31 Google Scholar
 159.Mughabghab SF (2006) Atlas of neutron resonances: resonance parameters and thermal cross sections Z = 1–100. Elsevier, Amsterdam (EXFOR: V1001) Google Scholar
 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.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.Khurana CS, Hans HS (1961) Crosssections for (n,2n) reactions at 14.8 MeV. Nucl Phys 28:560–569 (EXFOR: 31247) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.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.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.Qaim SM (1972) Activation cross sections, isomeric crosssection 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.Maslov GN, Nasyrov F, Pashkin NF (1974) Experimental crosssections for nuclear reactions involving neutrons with energies of about 14 MeV. IAEA report INDC(CCP)42, pp 10–12, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcccp0042.pdf; see also Vop At Nauki Tekhn Ser Jadernye Konstanty, Issue 9 (1972) 50 (EXFOR: 40136)
 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.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.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.Atsumi H, Miyade H, Yoshida M, Ishii T, Yamamoto H, Kawade K, Katoh T, Takahashi A, Iida T (1984) Measurement of neutron activation crosssections of fusion reactor materials at 14.6 MeV. Japan progress report to NEANDC No. 106/U, p 55 (EXFOR: 21935) Google Scholar
 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.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.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.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. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcban0003.pdf (EXFOR: 30825)
 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.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 JAERI1312 (EXFOR: 22089) Google Scholar
 178.Xiangzhong K, Yongchang W, Junqian Y, Xuezhi W, Jingkang Y, Jing W (1991) The cross section measurements for the Mo100(n,2n)Mo99, Mo96(n,p)Nb96 and Mo92(n,α)Zr89 m + g reactions. High Energy Phys Nucl Phys Chin 15:549 (EXFOR: 32579 #1) Google Scholar
 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. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcsud0001.pdf (EXFOR: 31464)
 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.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.Filatenkov AA (1999) Neutron activation cross sections measured at KRI in neutron energy region 13.4–14.9 MeV, Khlopin Radium Institute report KRI252 (EXFOR: 41298). IAEA report INDC(CCP)0460 Rev (2016) IAEA, Vienna, Austria. wwwnds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indcccp0460rev.pdf (EXFOR: 41614)
 183.Huizenga JR, Clarke KM, Gindler JE, Vandenbosch R (1962) Photofission cross sections of several nuclei with monoenergetic 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) ^{238}U fission induced by lowenergy monochromatic gamma rays: cross sections between 5 and 8 MeV. Nucl Phys 74:377–384 (EXFOR: M0535) Google Scholar
 184.Manfredini A, Muchnik M, Fiore L, Ramorino C, De Carvalho HG, Bösch R, Wölfli W (1966) Results on the cross section of ^{238}U fission induced by low energy monoenergetic gamma rays. Nuovo Cimento B 44:218–221 (EXFOR: L0093) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 185.Khan AM, Knowles JW (1972) Photofission of ^{232}Th, ^{238}U and ^{235}U near threshold using a variable energy beam of γ rays. Nucl Phys A 179:333–352 (EXFOR: M0504) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 186.Mafra OY, Kuniyoshi S, Goldemberg J (1972) Intermediate structure in the photoneutron and photofission cross sections in ^{238}U and ^{232}Th. Nucl Phys A 186:110–126 (EXFOR: M0433) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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.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 ^{238}U and ^{235}U from 5.0 MeV to 8.0 MeV. Nucl Phys A 212:221–240 (EXFOR: M0431) Google Scholar
 189.Veyssiere A, Beil H, Bergere R, Carlos P, Lepretre A (1973) A study of the photofission and photoneutron processes in the giant dipole resonance of ^{232}Th, ^{238}U and ^{237}Np. Nucl Phys A 199:45–64 (EXFOR: L0031) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 190.Dickey PA, Axel P (1975) ^{238}U and ^{232}Th photofission and photoneutron emission near threshold. Phys Rev Lett 35:501–504 (EXFOR: L0081) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 191.Caldwell JT, Dowdy EJ, Alvarez RA, Berman BL, Meyer P (1980) Experimental determination of photofission neutron multiplicities for ^{235}U, ^{236}U, ^{238}U, and ^{232}Th using monoenergetic photons. Nucl Sci Eng 73:153–163 (EXFOR: L0185) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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 ^{235,238}U in the energy range 11.5–30 MeV. Phys Rev C 29:2346–2348 (EXFOR: M0503) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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 ^{232}Th and ^{235,238}U measured with monochromatic tagged photons (20 MeV < E _{γ} < 110 MeV). Nucl Phys A 472:533–557 (EXFOR: M0491) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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 multihumped fission barrier of ^{238}U via subbarrier photofission. Phys Rev C 87:044321 (EXFOR: L0179) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 195.Dzhilavyan LZ, Nedorezov VG (2013) Photofission of ^{238}U in the giantresonance region. Phys At Nucl 76:1444–1451 (EXFOR: M0870) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 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 ^{232}Th, ^{238}U, ^{237}Np, and ^{239}Pu: consistency between data obtained using quasimonoenergetic annihilation and bremsstrahlung photons, Moscow State University, Institute of Nuclear Physics report No. 2007, 8/829 (EXFOR: M0722) Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.