D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S.

STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
MUON STOPPING POWER AND RANGE TABLES
10 MeV—100 TeV
DONALD E. GROOM
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94556, USA
deg@lbl.gov
and
NIKOLAI V. MOKHOV
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Batavia, IL 60510
mokhov@fnal.gov
and
SERGEI I. STRIGANOV
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Batavia, IL 60510
strigano@fnal.gov
and
IHEP, Protvino, Russia
striganov@mx.ihep.su
The mean stopping power for high-energy muons in matter can be described by −dE/dx =
a(E) + b(E)E, where a(E) is the electronic stopping power and b(E) is the energy-scaled con-
tribution from radiative processes—bremsstrahlung, pair production, and photonuclear interac-
tions. a(E) and b(E) are both slowly-varying functions of the muon energy E where radiative
effects are important. Tables of these stopping power contributions and continuous-slowing-down-
approximation (CSDA) ranges (which neglect multiple scattering and range straggling) are given
for a selection of elements, compounds, mixtures, and biological materials for incident kinetic en-
ergies in the range 10 MeV to 100 TeV. Tables of the contributions to b(E) are given for the same
materials.
LBNL-44742 1 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Electronic energy losses of high-energy heavy particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Major contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Mean excitation energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Low-energy corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Density effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Other high-energy corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. Bethe-Bloch equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. Comparison with other ionizing energy loss calculations . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Radiative losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. Bremsstrahlung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. Direct e
+
e

pair production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. Photonuclear interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4. Comparison with other works on muon radiative losses . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. Muon critical energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.6. Fluctuations in radiative energy loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Tabulated data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Stopping power and density-effect parameters for compounds
and mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix B. Direct pair production from screened nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Explanation of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
LBNL-44742 2 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
1. Introduction
The mean stopping power for high-energy muons (or other heavy charged particles
1
) in a material
can be described by [1]
−dE/dx = a (E) +b (E) E , (1)
where E is the total energy, a(E) is the electronic stopping power, and b(E) is due to radiative
processes—bremsstrahlung, pair production, and photonuclear interactions:
b ≡ b
brems
+b
pair
+b
nucl
(2)
The notation is convenient because a(E) and b(E) are slowly varying functions of E at the high
energies where radiative contributions are important. b(E)E is less than 1% of a(E) for E
<

100 GeV for most materials.
The “continuous-slowing-down-approximation” (CSDA) range is obtained from the integral
R(E) =

E
E0
[a (E

) +b (E

) E

]
−1
dE

(3)
where E
0
is sufficiently small that the result is insensitive to its exact value. At very high energies,
where a and b are (essentially) constant,
R(E) ≈ (1/b) ln (1 +E/E
µc
) , (4)
where E
µc
= a/b is the muon critical energy. The muon critical energy can be defined more precisely
as the energy at which electronic losses and radiative losses are equal, in analogy to one of the ways
of defining the critical energy for electrons. It is obtained by finding E
µc
such that
a (E
µc
) = E
µc
b (E
µc
) . (5)
The CSDA range is of limited usefulness, particularly at higher energies, because of the effect of
fluctuations. (Fluctuations in radiative losses are discussed briefly in Section 4.6.) For example, the
cosmic ray muon intensity falls very rapidly with energy, so that the flux observed deep underground
is quite different from that to be expected from Eq. (3). We nonetheless calculate the CSDA range
given by Eq. (3) as an indicator of actual muon range.
The important and well-studied subjects of stopping power fluctuations and range straggling in
electronic energy loss [2,3] are not treated, even though they are much more serious for muons than
for heavier particles: The fractional range straggling (

variance(range)/range) scales as

1/M
for particles with the same velocity, and hence is three times larger for a 100 MeV muon than
for a 900 MeV proton. In copper the fractional straggling varies from 4% at 10 MeV, through a
minimum of 2.8% at 300 MeV, then rising through 5.7% at 10 GeV. Above ∼ 100 GeV straggling
due to fluctuations in bremsstrahlung losses begins to dominate.
Multiple scattering is also neglected, but with more justification. One measure of multiple
scattering is provided by the “detour factor” [3], the ratio of the average penetration depth to the
average path length for a stopping particle. The detour factor is 0.98 in the worst case (uranium
at our lowest energy). This ratio increases rapidly toward unity as the energy is increased or if the
atomic weight of the absorber is decreased.
1
The radiative loss formulae given in this paper apply only to a spin-1/2 pointlike heavy particles, where
“heavy” means “much more massive than an electron.” Insofar as we know, the solution for spin-0 particles
has never been published.
LBNL-44742 3 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 1: Definitions of most of the variables used in this report. The electronic
charge e and the kinematic variables β = v/c and γ = 1/

1 −β
2
have their usual
definitions. Constants are from CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamen-
tal Physical Constants: 1998 [7]. Parenthetical numbers after the values give
the 1-standard deviation uncertainties in the last digits. In Sect. 4 the convention
c = 1 is used.
Symbol Definition Units or Value
α Fine structure constant e
2
/4π
0
¯ hc 1/137.035 999 76(50)
M Incident particle mass MeV/c
2
M
µ
Muon mass 105.658 356 8(52) MeV/c
2
E Incident particle energy γMc
2
MeV
T Kinetic energy (γ −1)Mc
2
MeV
p Momentum γβMc MeV/c
m
e
c
2
Electron mass × c
2
0.510 998 902(21) MeV
r
e
Classical electron radius e
2
/4π
0
m
e
c
2
2.817 940 285(31) fm
N
A
Avogadro’s number 6.022 141 99(47) ×10
23
mol
−1
ze Charge of incident particle
Z Atomic number of medium
A Atomic mass of medium g mol
−1
(Occasionally: atomic mass number) dimensionless
K/A 4πN
A
r
2
e
m
e
c
2
/A 0.307 075 MeV g
−1
cm
2
for A = 1 g mol
−1
I Mean excitation energy eV (Nota bene! )
δ Density effect correction to electronic energy loss
¯ hω
p
Plasma energy

4πN
e
r
3
e
m
e
c
2
/α 28.816

ρ Z/A eV for ρ in g cm
−3
N
e
Electron density
w
j
Fraction by weight of the jth element in a compound or mixture (
¸
w
i
=1)
n
j
number of the jth kind of atoms in a compound or mixture
E
µc
Muon critical energy GeV
ν Fractional energy transfer in an incident particle interaction
ε νE, the energy transfer in a single interaction
Tables of muon energy loss from a 1985 CERN internal report by Lohmann, Kopp, and Voss [4]
have become the de facto world standard. This careful work serves as the benchmark for the
present effort. Later theoretical work enables us to improve the calculations for low-Z elements
(2 ≤ Z ≤ 10) and to make minor improvements elsewhere.
It is our intention to make this report sufficiently self-contained that the interested user can
replicate our calculations, even though this results in our giving often-tedious detail. The necessary
constants for electronic loss calculations and tables of b(E) for elements, for the mean radiative loss
calculations, are also available as ASCII files at http://pdg.lbl.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.
These tables are more extensive than the subset of data actually presented in this paper.
There is one serious dilemma: We believe that the density effect corrections via the careful
parameterizations of Sternheimer et al. [5] are more dependable than those calculated via their
general algorithm [6]. But, as will be discussed in Section 3.2, better values for mean excitation
energies are now available for a variety of materials. The changes are sometimes as great as 10%.
Over much of our energy region of interest (for βγ
>

1000) however, the density effect has “replaced”
the mean excitation energy by the plasma energy, so that improvements in the mean excitation
energy have no effect on the stopping power. We therefore continue to use sometimes-obsolete
LBNL-44742 4 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
excitation values. How this affects our results will be discussed in Section 3.2. On the other hand,
corrections to the densities used by Sternheimer et al. [5] are easily accommodated if the changes
are small; this is done in several cases.
We present tables of stopping power and mean range for muons from kinetic energy T = 10 MeV
to 100 TeV for most elements and a variety compounds and mixtures. Tables of b(E) are given for
the same materials. In the case of elemental gases, tables are also given for the liquid state.
The symbols and constants used in this report are explained in Table 1.
2. Overview
The behavior of stopping power (= −dE/dx) in copper over twelve decades of muon kinetic energy
is shown by the solid curves in Fig. 1. Data below the breaks in the curves are from ICRU 49 [3],
while data above the breaks are from our present calculations. Approximate boundaries between
regions described by different theories or phenomenologies are indicated by the shaded vertical
bands. While our main interest is at higher energies, some understanding of the behavior at lower
energies is useful, in particular for starting range integrals.
For β < α, below the first grey band in Fig. 1, the muon velocity is small compared with that
of the valence electrons in the absorber. Following the work of Fermi and Teller [9], Lindhard
and collaborators have constructed a successful semi-phenomenological model to describe ionizing
energy losses in this regime, approximating the electronic structure of solids by a Fermi electron
gas distribution [10]. The stopping power is found to be proportional to the projectile velocity.
This region is marked by the dashed curve with the dotted extension in Fig. 1. However, below
β ≈ 0.001–0.01 nonionizing energy losses via nuclear recoil become increasingly significant [3],
finally dominating energy loss at very low energies.
Above β ≈ 0.05 or 0.1 (the second grey band in Fig. 1) one may make the opposite approxima-
tion, neglecting electronic motion within atoms. There is no satisfactory theory for the intermediate
region, α < β < 0.1 (but see Ref. 11). There is, however, a rich experimental literature, which
Andersen and Ziegler have used to construct phenomenological fits bridging the regions in which
there is adequate theoretical understanding [12]. This is the interval between the grey bands
shown in Fig. 1.
Electronic (ionization + excitation) losses in the high-velocity region are well described by
Bethe’s theory based on a first-order Born approximation [13], to which are added a number of
corrections for the low-energy region and to account for the polarization of the medium at high
energies. The curve falls to a broad minimum whose position for solid absorbers decreases from
βγ = 3.5 to 3.0 as Z goes from 7 to 100. The mean electronic loss at the minimum value as a
function of Z is shown in Fig. 2. The rise in Fig. 1 with further increases of the projectile energy
(labeled “without δ” in Fig. 1) is less marked when the polarization effects are taken into account
(dash-dotted curve).
Electronic losses at very high energies are somewhat modified by bremsstrahlung from the
atomic electrons [14] (see Section 3.5) and other effects, such as form factor corrections [15].
These are of decreased importance because radiative energy losses begin to be significant above a
few hundreds of GeV for even intermediate-Z absorbers. For example, radiative losses in copper
dominate above E
µc
= 315 GeV. The radiative contribution, and hence the entire energy loss rate,
increases nearly linearly with energy above 1 TeV or so.
LBNL-44742 5 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
0.1 1 10 100 1 10 100 1 10 100 1 10 100
Muon kinetic energy T
Muon momentum p
1
10
100
S
t
o
p
p
i
n
g

p
o
w
e
r

[
M
e
V

c
m
2
/
g
]
1
10
100
S
t
o
p
p
i
n
g

p
o
w
e
r

[
M
e
V

c
m
2
/
g
]
L
i
n
d
h
a
r
d
-

S
c
h
a
r
f
f
L
i
n
d
h
a
r
d
-

S
c
h
a
r
f
f
Andersen-
Ziegler
Bethe-Bloch Radiative
Bethe-Bloch Radiative
Radiative
effects
reach 1%
Radiative
effects
reach 1%
µ
+
on Cu
Without δ
Radiative
losses
Without δ
Radiative
losses
βγ
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
100 10 1 0.1
1000 10
4
10
5
10
6
[MeV/c]
100 10 1
[GeV/c]
100 10 1
[TeV/c]
Andersen-
Ziegler

Minimum
ionization
Minimum
ionization
E
µc
E
µc
Nuclear
losses
[TeV] [GeV] [MeV] [keV]
µ

µ

Nuclear
losses
Figure 1: Stopping power (= −dE/dx) for positive muons in copper as a func-
tion of kinetic energy T (top figure, 12 orders of magnitude range) and as a function
of momentum p = Mβcγ (bottom figure, 9 orders of magnitude). Solid curves indi-
cate the total stopping power. Data below the break at T ≈ 0.5 MeV are scaled by
the appropriate mass ratios from the π

and p tables in ICRU 49 [3], and data at
higher energies are from the present calculations. Vertical bands indicate bound-
aries between different theoretical approximations or dominant physical processes.
The short dotted lines labeled “µ

” illustrate the “Barkas effect” [8]. “Nuclear
losses” indicates non-ionizing nuclear recoil energy losses, which are negligible here.
LBNL-44742 6 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5


d
E
/
d
x

m
i
n

(
M
e
V

g

1
c
m
2
)
1 2 5 10 20 50 100
Z
H He Li Be B CNONe Sn Fe
Solids
Gases
H
2
gas: 4.10
H
2
liquid: 3.97
2.35 – 0.64 log
10
(Z)
Figure 2: Minimum ionization as a function of Z. The straight line is fitted for
Z ≥ 6.
3. Electronic energy losses of high-energy heavy particles
The physics formulae needed to describe the average electronic energy losses of a high-energy
(β αZ) massive (= electron) charged particle as it passes through matter have been reviewed
elsewhere [3, 16–24]. ICRU 49 is particularly useful, although it is limited to protons and alpha
particles (except for a short π

table) and to proton energies less than 10 GeV, corresponding to
E < 1.1 GeV for muons. In this energy region nuclear recoil contributes negligibly to energy loss,
and radiative losses, which typically become important above tens of GeV, and radiative losses can
be added as an independent contribution.
For the moment, we leave open the possibilities that the charge is ze and that the particle
might be something other than a muon. We briefly review the subject here in order to emphasize
high-energy behavior.
3.1. Major contributions
The electronic stopping power
2
is calculated by summing the contributions of all possible inelastic
scatterings. These are normally from lower to higher (bound or unbound) electronic energy states,
so the particle loses a small amount of energy in each scattering. The kinetic energy of the scattered
electron is Q.
In his derivation of the stopping power, Bethe [25] introduced the concept of “generalized
oscillator strength” which is closely related to the inelastic-scattering form-factor [20]. The
following summarizes the detailed discussions by Rossi [17], Fano [19], and Bichsel [24].
1. Low-Q region. Here the reciprocal of the 3-momentum transfer (roughly an impact parameter)
is large compared with atomic dimensions. The scattered electrons have kinetic energies up to
some cutoff Q
1
, typically 0.01–0.1 eV [17]. For this region, Bethe approximated the generalized
oscillator strength by the dipole oscillator strength f(ε) which is the generalized oscillator
2
Variously called S, a(E), or the electronic part of the total mean energy loss rate −dE/dx.
LBNL-44742 7 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
strength f(ε, q) for zero momentum transfer q (ε is the energy loss in a single collision). f(ε)
is closely related to the optical absorption coefficient. He derived the following contribution to
S:
S
low
=
K
2
z
2
Z
A
1
β
2
¸
ln
Q
1
I
2
/2m
e
β
2
c
2
+ ln γ
2
−β
2

(6)
Here ln I =

f(ε) ln ε dε. The denominator I
2
/2m
e
β
2
c
2
in the first (logarithmic) term is the ef-
fective lower cutoff on the integral over dQ/Q. This term comes from “longitudinal excitations”
(the ordinary Coulomb potential), and the next two terms from transverse excitations.
The low-Q region is associated with large impact parameters and hence with long distances.
Polarization of the medium can seriously reduce this contribution, particularly at high energies
where the transverse extension of the incident particle’s electric field becomes substantial. The
correction is usually made by subtracting a density-effect term δ, inside the square brackets of
Eq. (6). This important correction is discussed in Sect. 3.4.
2. Intermediate- and high-Q regions. In an intermediate region atomic excitation energies are not
necessarily small compared with Q, but transverse excitations can be neglected. At higher
energies Q can be equated to the energy given to the electron, neglecting its binding energy.
When the integration of the energy-weighted cross sections is carried out from Q
1
to some
upper limit Q
upper
, one obtains
S
high
=
K
2
z
2
Z
A
1
β
2
¸
ln
Q
upper
Q
1
−β
2
Q
upper
Q
max

. (7)
Here Q
max
is the kinematic maximum possible electron recoil kinetic energy, given by
Q
max
=
2m
e
c
2
β
2
γ
2
1 + 2γm
e
/M + (m
e
/M)
2
. (8)
Q
upper
is normally equal to Q
max
(as will be the case after the conclusion of this section), and
cannot exceed Q
max
. The more general form given in Eq. (7) is useful in considering restricted
energy loss, which is of relevance in considering the energy actually deposited in a thin absorber.
At high energies (such that Q
upper
/Q
max
1) the first term in the square brackets dominates.
If Q
upper
is restricted to some maximum value, e.g. 0.5 MeV, then S
high
is essentially constant
for Q
max
> Q
upper
. If Q
upper
= Q
max
the high-Q region stopping power rises with energy as
ln Q
max
. In other words, the increase of S
high
with energy is associated with the production of
high-energy recoil electrons, or δ-rays.
A very small projectile mass dependence of the electronic stopping power is introduced by
Q
max
, which otherwise depends only on projectile velocity.
In Fano’s discussion the low-energy approximation Q
max
≈ 2m
e
c
2
β
2
γ
2
= 2m
e
p
2
/M
2
is implicit.
Accordingly, Eq. (7) is more closely related to Rossi’s form (see his Eqns. 2.3.6 and 2.5.4). This
low-energy approximation is made in many papers of the Bevatron era, but is in error by a
factor of two for a muon with T = 10.8 GeV. Note that Q
max
→E at very high energies.
LBNL-44742 8 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
3.2. Mean excitation energy
“The determination of the mean excitation energy is the principal non-trivial task in the evaluation
of the Bethe stopping-power formula” [26]. Recommended values have varied substantially with
time. Estimates based on experimental stopping-power measurements for protons, deuterons, and
alpha particles and on oscillator-strength distributions and dielectric-response functions were given
in ICRU 37 [27]. These were retained in ICRU 49 [3], where a useful comparison with other
results is given, and they are used in the EGS4 [28] electron/photon transport code. These values
(scaled by 1/Z) are shown in Fig. 3. The error estimates are from Table 2 in Ref. 26. As can be
seen, I/Z 10 ±1 eV for elements heavier than sulphur.
The figure also shows Bichsel’s more recent determination of I for selected heavy elements [29].
He estimates uncertainties from 1.5% to 5%; the 5% errors are shown. The change from the ICRU 37
values is less than 7% in all of the 19 cases except for samarium (7.5%), tungsten (7.5%), bismuth
(9.3%) and thorium (9.5%). In addition, the mean excitation energy for liquid water has been
more recently determined to be 79.7 ±0.05 eV [31], significantly higher than the ICRU 37 value,
75.0 eV. This reference also gives mean excitation energies for a variety of biological materials of
interest here. In addition, Leung has described further corrections to stopping power theory due to
relativistic effects of the target electrons [32]. Such effects could increase the stopping power by
as much as 2% for high-Z targets. Bichsel has observed that this would be equivalent to lowering
the mean excitation energy values for high-Z materials by as much as 10%.
We are strongly motivated to use the ICRU 37 mean excitation energies because of the avail-
ability of density effect parameters based on these values [5], yet in many cases the more recent
values are superior and should be used. To investigate the consequences of errors or changes in the
mean excitation energies, we ran a version of our code in which I was increased by 10% and no other
changes were made. In the T
µ
= 10–100 MeV region, the stopping power increased by somewhat
over 1% for carbon and iron. For lead it decreased by 2.6%–1.4% over this energy range. Since we
did not modify the density-effect parameters, in particular C (see Eq. (12)), there was a residual
≈ 0.4% at high energies. The density-effect correction essentially replaces I by the plasma fre-
quency ¯ hω
p
for p/M
>

1000, so the stopping power is completely insensitive to I for T
>

100 GeV,
or for the lower half of our stopping power tables. The range integral always has contributions
from lower-energy parts, but these also become increasingly insignificant as the energy increases.
We therefore feel justified in using the older data, for which dependable density-effect parameters
are available.
3.3. Low-energy corrections
The distant-collision contribution to the stopping power given by Eq. (6) was obtained by Bethe [25]
with the approximation that the velocities of atomic electrons are small compared with that of the
projectile. More precisely, Bethe’s approximation was to replace the generalized oscillator strength
by the dipole oscillator strength f(ε) in obtaining this result. This leads to correction terms [16]
which are different for each atomic shell. The “shell correction” for the jth shell is represented by
−2C
j
/Z, so that an additional term −C/Z = −
¸
C
j
/Z appears in the square brackets of Eq. (6).
Other ways to calculate the shell correction are discussed in Ref. 3. Unfortunately, the algorithms
are not easy for the non-expert to implement.
The shell correction is not important at the energies of interest in this report. For example,
the stopping power correction is 0.3% for a 10 MeV muon in iron, and 3% in uranium. It falls
rapidly with increasing energy. But even at intermediate energies it plays a role in “starting” the
range integral. To investigate its importance, and to compare our results with the proton stopping
power and range-energy tables in ICRU 49 [3], we have used the simple but long-obsolete analytic
LBNL-44742 9 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
I
a
d
j
/
Z

(
e
V
)
Z
Barkas & Berger 1964
Bichsel 1992
ICRU 37 (1984)
(interpolated values are
not marked with points)

Figure 3: Mean excitation energies (divided by Z) as adopted in ICRU 37 [27]
(filled points). Those based on experimental measurements are shown by symbols
with error flags; the interpolated values are simply joined. The grey point is for
liquid H
2
; the black point at 19.2 is for H
2
gas. The open circles show more modern
determinations by Bichsel [29]. The dotted curve is from the approximate formula
of Barkas [30].
approximation for the shell correction introduced by Barkas [30]:
3
The accuracy of our results is
addressed in Section 3.7.
In early Bevatron experiments Barkas et al. [8] found that negative pions had a somewhat
greater range than positive pions with the same (small) initial energy. This was attributed to a
departure from first-order Born theory [33], and is normally included by adding a term zL
1
(β)
to the stopping-power formula. The effect has been measured for a number of negative/positive
particle pairs, most recently for antiprotons/protons at the CERN LEAR facility [34]. It is
illustrated by the µ

stopping-power segment shown in Fig. 1.
Bethe’s stopping power theory is based on a first-order Born approximation. To obtain Bloch’s
result, a term z
2
L
2
(β) is added if results accurate at low energies are desired.
These corrections are discussed in detail in ICRU 49, and are mentioned here for completeness.
They are not significant at the energies of concern in this report.
3
Explicitly,
C =

0.422377η
−2
+ 0.0304043η
−4
− 0.00038106η
−6

× 10
−6
I
2
+

3.858019η
−2
− 0.1667989η
−4
+ 0.00157955η
−6

× 10
−9
I
3
,
(9)
where η = βγ and I is in eV. This form is reasonably good only for η > 0.13 (T = 7.9 MeV for a proton,
0.89 MeV for a muon).
LBNL-44742 10 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
3.4. Density effect
As the particle energy increases its electric field flattens and extends, so that the distant-collision
part of dE/dx (Eq. (6)) increases as lnβγ. However, real media become polarized, limiting this
extension and effectively truncating part of this logarithmic rise. This “density effect” has been
extensively treated over the years; see Refs. 5, and 6, and 28, and references therein. The approach
is to subtract a density-effect correction, δ, from the distant-collision contribution, resulting in the
δ/2 term in Eq. (15). At very high energies,
δ/2 →ln (¯ hω
p
/I) + ln βγ −1/2 , (10)
where ¯ hω
p
is the plasma energy defined in Table 1. As can be seen from Eq. (15), the effect of
Eq. (10) is to replace I with ¯ hω
p
and to eliminate the explicit β
2
γ
2
dependence in the first (log)
term in the square brackets. The remaining rise of the electronic stopping power comes from Q
max
,
given by Eq. (8). The effect of the density correction is shown in Fig. 1.
At some low energy (related to x
0
below) the density effect is insignificant, and above some high
energy (see x
1
below) it is well described by the asymptotic form given in Eq. (10). Conductors
require special treatment at the low-energy end. Sternheimer has proposed the parameterization [35]
δ =

2 (ln 10) x −C if x ≥ x
1
;
2 (ln 10) x −C +a (x
1
−x)
k
if x
0
≤ x < x
1
;
0 if x < x
0
(nonconductors);
δ
0
10
2(x−x0)
if x < x
0
(conductors) ,
(11)
where x = log
10
(p/M) = log
10
βγ. C is obtained by equating the high-energy case of Eq. (11) with
the limit of Eq. (10), so that
C = 2 ln (I/¯ hω
p
) + 1 . (12)
The other parameters (a, k, x
0
, x
1
, and δ
0
) are adjusted to give a best fit to the results of detailed
numerical calculations for a logarithmically spaced grid of energy values. Note that C is the negative
of the C used in earlier publications. A variety of different parameter sets are available. In some
cases these result from a different fitting procedure having been used with the same model, and
although the parameters look different the resulting δ is not sensibly different. For elements, the
PEGS4 data [28] use the values from Ref. 36.
In a series of papers by Sternheimer, Seltzer, and Berger, the density-effect parameter tables
are extended to nearly 300 elements, compounds, and mixtures. The chemical composition of the
materials is given in Ref. 26.
4
The agreement with more detailed calculations or results obtained
with other parameter sets is usually at the 0.5% level [37]; however, see Table IV in Ref. 38. We
use the tables given in Ref. 5 for most of the present calculations.
5
The densities used in these tables are occasionally in error, or, in the case of some polymers
with variable density, out of the usual range. In this and other cases we use Eq. (A.8) [6] to adjust
the parameters; these are marked by footnotes in the tables in Section 5.
4
Slightly incorrect compositions (and therefore density effect parameters) are given for lanthanum oxy-
sulfide (corrected in a footnote in Ref. 37), cellulose acetate, cellulose nitrate, polypropylene, and perhaps
other materials. These will be corrected, and an approximately equal number of new materials added, in a
forthcoming publication [39].
5
Given the power of modern computers, experts now calculate the density effect from first principles
rather than use these formulae [39]. One problem along the way is knowing the mean excitation energy,
which can be different for condensed and gas states of the same substance and even depends upon density. In
our case radiative effects dominate over most of the relevant energy range, and no great error is engendered
by employing the user-friendly parameterized forms.
LBNL-44742 11 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
There remains the problem of obtaining the density-effect parameters if they have not been
tabulated for the material of interest. This issue is of particular importance here in the case of
cryogenic liquids such as N
2
, but is also of interest when dealing with a compound or mixture not
tabulated by Sternheimer, Berger, and Seltzer [5]. The algorithm proposed by Sternheimer and
Peierls [6] is discussed in Appendix A.
To some degree, both the adjustment of the parameters for a different density and the Stern-
heimer–Peierls algorithm can be checked by using those cases in the tables where parameters are
given for different densities of the same material. When the “compact carbon” parameters are
adjusted to the two other tabulated carbon densities, the difference in stopping power and range
with those obtained directly is less than 0.2%. Calculation of parameters for a cryogenic liquid
using the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm can be checked for hydrogen and water. This method was
used to calculate parameters for liquid hydrogen at bubble chamber density (0.060 g/cm
3
), using
the excitation energy for the liquid; at worst, at minimum ionization, −dE/dx was low by 2.5%,
while the range was high by 1.1%. Deviations were smaller elsewhere. When the algorithm was
used to calculate parameters for water using the excitation energy for steam, the result was 1%
higher at minimum ionization than that obtained directly with the water parameters. Only a slight
improvement was obtained by using the excitation energy given for water.
Hydrogen is always a worst case. Sternheimer, Berger, and Seltzer [5] tabulate parameters
for both hydrogen gas and liquid hydrogen under bubble chamber conditions, so we have made
calculations in both directions via the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm and by scaling densities via
Eq. (A.8). We conclude that the stopping power results in this report obtained with parameters
scaled to different densities are accurate to within the overall 0.5% agreement level estimated by
Seltzer and Berger [37], and that the parameters calculated for cryogenic liquids (except hydrogen)
using the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm could produce stopping power errors of slightly over 1% at
minimum ionization, and less elsewhere.
3.5. Other high-energy corrections
Bremsstrahlung from atomic electrons in the case of incident muons was considered in a 1997 paper
by Kelner, Kokoulin, and Petrukhin [14]. There are four lowest-order diagrams: Photon emission
by the muon before and after photon exchange with the electron, and emission by the electron
before and after photon exchange. The former diagrams result in losses nearly proportional to E,
and are described by Eq. (19). The latter are properly part of electronic losses, and produce an
additional term in the stopping power. To leading powers in logarithms, this loss is given by:

dE
dx

=
K

Z
A
α
¸
ln
2E
M
µ
c
2

1
3
ln
2Q
max
m
e
c
2

ln
2
2Q
max
m
e
c
2
(13)
As Kelner et al. observe, this addition is important at high energies, amounting to 2% of the
electronic loss at 100 GeV and 4% at 1 TeV. It is included in our calculations.
An additional spin-correction term, (1/4)(Q
max
/E)
2
, is included in the square brackets Eq. (7)
if the incident particle is a muon (point-like and spin 1/2) [17]. Its contribution to the stopping
power asymptotically approaches 0.038 (Z/A) MeV g
−1
cm
2
, reaching 90% of that value at 200 GeV
in most materials. In iron its fractional contribution reaches a maximum of 0.75% at 670 GeV.
Although this contribution is well within uncertainties in the total stopping power, its inclusion
avoids a systematic bias.
At energies above a few hundred GeV, the maximum 4-momentum transfer to the electron can
exceed 1 GeV/c, so that, in the case of incident pions, protons, and other hadrons, cross sections
are modified by the extended charge distributions of the projectiles. One might expect this “soft”
LBNL-44742 12 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
cutoff to Q
max
to reduce the electronic stopping power. This problem has been investigated by
J. D. Jackson [15], who concluded that corrections to dE/dx become important only at energies
where radiative losses dominate. At lower energies the stopping power is almost unchanged, since
its average, dominated by losses due to many soft collisions, is insensitive to the rare hard collisions.
For muons the spin correction replaces this form-factor correction.
Jackson and McCarthy [40] have pointed out that the Barkas correction calculated by Fermi
(but see their Ref. 20) persists at high energies; hence, a term should be added to the close-collision
part of Eq. (15):
Kz
3
Z
A
πα

(14)
This correction, which is ±0.00176 MeV g
−1
cm
2
for z = ±1, Z/A = 1/2 and β = 1, produces
range differences of a few parts per thousand between positive and negative muons near minimum
ionization. At higher energies sign-indifferent radiative effects dominate. We neglect this correction.
3.6. Bethe-Bloch equation
We summarize this discussion with the Bethe-Bloch equation for muons in the form used in this
paper:


dE
dx

electronic
= K
Z
A
1
β
2
¸
1
2
ln
2m
e
c
2
β
2
γ
2
Q
max
I
2
−β
2

δ
2
+
1
8
Q
2
max
(γMc
2
)
2
¸
+ ∆

dE
dx

(15)
The final term, for bremsstrahlung from atomic electrons, is given by Eq. (13).
Except for the very small projectile mass dependence introduced by Q
max
, this expression
depends only on the projectile velocity. This means that a value of the stopping power for a
particle with mass M
1
and kinetic energy T
1
is the same as the stopping power for a particle with
mass M
2
at T
2
= (M
2
/M
1
)T
1
. Similarly, R/M is a function of T/M (or E/M, or p/M).
3.7. Comparison with other ionizing energy loss calculations
Comparisons with the ICRU 49 proton tables have been made by running our code with the proton
mass. A summary of the stopping power comparisons is given in Table 2, and of the CSDA range
comparisons in Table 3. In general the agreement is regarded as adequate, but is worse at high
atomic number and low energy. The simple shell correction given by Eq. (9) has been used, and
under these conditions somewhat overcorrects.
ICRU 49 concludes that the “differences between tabulated and experimental stopping powers
are mostly smaller than 1% and hardly ever greater than 2%,” and in the case of compounds and
mixtures “the uncertainties are approximately three times as large as in the case of elements” [3].
Our muon tables start at T = 10 MeV, corresponding to a proton energy of about 100 MeV,
so that only 100 MeV and above is relevant in the proton comparisons. For uranium the stopping
power at 100 MeV is low by 0.8% and the range high by 1.9%. Without the shell correction the
stopping power for this case is high by 1.7% and the range low by 2.5%. We make the shell correction
only for elements. We conclude that in a worst-case scenario, PuCl
4
(which we do not tabulate)
at 10 MeV, our results could be in error by nearly 3%. For lower-Z materials the agreement is
consistent with ICRU 49. In any case the agreement improves rapidly with increasing energy.
Lohmann et al. [4] list muon electronic losses separately for hydrogen, iron, and uranium. Since
they do not consider the contributions of bremsstrahlung from atomic electrons (Eq. (13)), we have
made comparisons with this correction “turned off.” Under these conditions, our results disagree
LBNL-44742 13 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 2: Comparison of stopping power calculations for protons (in MeV g
−1
cm
2
)
with those of ICRU 49 [3] and Bichsel 1992 [29].
10 MeV 100 MeV 1 GeV 10 GeV
Hydrogen gas (Z = 1)
This calculation 101.7 15.29 4.496 4.539
ICRU 49 101.9 15.30 4.497 4.539
Graphite (Z = 6, ρ = 1.7 g/cm
3
)
This calculation 40.72 6.514 1.942 1.883
ICRU 49 40.84 6.520 1.946 1.881
Iron (Z = 26)
This calculation 28.54 5.045 1.575 1.603
ICRU 49 28.56 5.043 1.574 1.601
Tin (Z = 50)
This calculation 22.26 4.177 1.351 1.426
ICRU 49 22.02 4.165 1.349 1.423
Lead (Z = 82)
This calculation 17.52 3.532 1.189 1.291
ICRU 49 17.79 3.552 1.186 1.288
Bichsel 1992 17.79 3.592
Uranium (Z = 92)
This calculation 16.68 3.388 1.144 1.243
ICRU 49 16.90 3.411 1.140 1.242
Bichsel 1992 16.86 3.450
Liquid water
This calculation 45.94 7.290 2.210 2.132
ICRU 49 45.67 7.289 2.211 2.126
by at most 2 in the 4th decimal place, presumably from different rounding of the density-effect
parameters.
4. Radiative losses
The radiative contribution to muon stopping power is conveniently written as b(E)E [1], where
b(E) is a slowly-varying function of energy which is asymptotically constant. As indicated earlier,
it is usually written as a sum of contributions from bremsstrahlung, direct pair production, and
photonuclear interactions:
b ≡ b
brems
+b
pair
+b
nucl
(2)
Here we describe the calculation of these contributions. Note that the convention c = 1 is used in
all the formulae in this section.
In this section we specialize to M = M
µ
, although the results apply to any massive spin-1/2
pointlike particle. To a very rough approximation, the bremsstrahlung contribution scales as 1/M
2
,
and the pair-production part as 1/M. The results below probably apply fairly well to charged pion
radiative energy losses, although to the best of our knowledge radiative losses by spin-0 particles
has not been treated.
LBNL-44742 14 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 3: Comparison of CSDA range calculations for protons (in g cm
−2
) with
those of ICRU 49.
10 MeV 100 MeV 1 GeV 10 GeV
Hydrogen gas
This calculation 0.0534 3.636 158.7 2254.
ICRU 49 0.0535 3.633 158.7 2254.
Graphite (Z = 6, ρ = 1.7 g/cm
3
)
This calculation 0.1361 8.634 367.4 5333.
ICRU 49 0.1377 8.627 367.0 5337.
Iron (Z = 26)
This calculation 0.2013 11.36 459.2 6383.
ICRU 49 0.2064 11.37 459.6 6389.
Tin (Z = 50)
This calculation 0.2623 13.90 540.9 7272.
ICRU 49 0.2764 13.95 541.9 7291.
Lead
This calculation 0.3315 16.79 620.7 8120.
ICRU 49 0.3528 16.52 621.7 8143.
Uranium
This calculation 0.3462 17.56 645.2 8432.
ICRU 49 0.3718 17.24 646.8 8456.
Liquid water
This calculation 0.1201 7.710 325.4 4703.
ICRU 49 0.1230 7.718 325.4 4700.
4.1. Bremsstrahlung
The cross section for electron bremsstrahlung was obtained by Bethe and Heitler [41]. In the case
of muons, it is necessary to take into account nuclear screening, which was first done consistently
by Petrukhin and Shestakov [42]. A simple approximation for medium and heavy nuclei (Z > 10)
was derived. Lohmann, Kopp, and Voss [4] also used this approximation, but for Z < 10 they set
the nuclear screening correction equal to zero. As a result, their bremsstrahlung contribution for
low-Z nuclei is overestimated by about 10%.
The CCFR collaboration [43] revised the Petrukhin and Shestakov [42] results, pointing out
that Ref. 42 overestimates the nuclear screening correction by about 10%. Kelner et al. [44] later
observed that the CCFR conclusion probably resulted from an incorrect treatment of the Bethe-
Heitler formula. Their new calculations were in good agreement with the old ones by Petrukhin
and Shestakov for medium and heavy nuclei, but in addition they proposed an approximation for
light nuclei. An independent analysis was performed by the Bugaev group (see, e.g., Ref. 45). The
results of Petrukhin and Shestakov and the Bugaev group for bremsstrahlung on screened nuclei
agree to within a few percent.
All of the results mentioned above were derived in the Born approximation. It was recently
shown [45] that the non-Born corrections in the region of low and high momentum transfers have
the same order of magnitude but opposite signs. As a consequence, they nearly compensate each
other.
LBNL-44742 15 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
The differential cross section for muon bremsstrahlung from a (screened) nucleus as given in
Ref. 44 is used for the present paper:

brems, nucl
= α

2Z
m
e
M
µ
r
e

2

4
3

4
3
ν +ν
2

Φ(δ)
ν
(16)
Here ν is the fraction of the muon’s energy transferred to the photon, and
Φ(δ) = ln

BM
µ
Z
−1/3
/m
e
1 +δ

e BZ
−1/3
/m
e

−∆
n
(δ) , (17)
where D
n
= 1.54A
0.27
, B = 182.7 (B = 202.4 for hydrogen), e = 2.7181 . . ., δ = M
2
µ
ν/2E(1 − ν),
and the nuclear screening correction ∆
n
is given by

n
= ln

D
n
1 +δ (D
n

e −2) /M
µ

. (18)
The Thomas-Fermi potential for atomic electrons is assumed. A more precise calculation of the
radiation logarithm using the Hartree-Fock model is described in Ref. 46, and the results agree
with the Thomas-Fermi results within about 1% at high energies (total screening); the agreement
is better at low energies. Since there is not yet a Hartree-Fock result for screening in the case of
bremsstrahlung from atomic electrons, we prefer to use the form factors based on the Thomas-Fermi
potential throughout.
To account for bremsstrahlung losses on atomic electrons, Z
2
in Eq. (16) is usually replaced
with Z(Z +1) (e.g., see Ref. 4). A much better approximation for the contribution from electrons,
taking into account electronic binding and recoil, is given by [14]:

brems, elec
= αZ

2
m
e
M
µ
r
e

2

4
3

4
3
ν +ν
2

Φ
in
(δ)
ν
(19)
In this case
Φ
in
(δ) = ln

M
µ

M
µ
δ/m
2
e
+

e

−ln

1 +
m
e
δ BZ
−2/3

e

, (20)
where B = 1429 for all elements but hydrogen, where B = 446, and δ = M
2
ν/2E(1 −ν), as above.
The cross section for bremsstrahlung as a function of fractional energy transfer ν is shown in
Fig. 4. Although pair production dominates the radiative contributions to the stopping power,
bremsstrahlung dominates at high ν.
The average energy loss −dE/dx due to bremsstrahlung is calculated by integrating the sum
of these cross sections, as in Eq. (21) below.
4.2. Direct e
+
e

pair production
The cross section for direct e
+
e

pair production in a Coulomb field was first calculated by
Racah [47]. Atomic screening was later taken into account by Kelner and Kotov [48]. With their
approach, the average energy loss is obtained through a three-fold numerical integration. With
the simple parameterization of the screening functions proposed by Kokoulin and Petrukhin [49],
one obtains a double differential cross section for e
+
e

production. This formula is widely used in
muon transport calculations (for example, see Ref. 4). Based on this work, a (rather complicated)
analytic form for the energy spectrum of pairs created in screened muon-nucleus collisions was
LBNL-44742 16 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
derived by Nikishov [50]. The explicit formula is given in Appendix B. The average energy loss
for pair production is calculated by numerical integration:
b
pair, nucl
= −
1
E
dE
dx

pair, nucl
=
N
A
A

1
0
ν


dν (21)
The same expression as for the nucleus is usually used to calculate the pair production con-
tribution from atomic electrons, with Z
2
replaced with Z (e.g., Ref. 4). A more precise approach
has recently been developed by Kelner [51], who proposed a simple parameterization of the energy
loss based on a rigorous QED calculation. This formula for the electronic contribution to pair
production energy loss by muons is valid to within 5% of the more laborious numerical result for
E > 5 GeV, and is used for the present calculations:
b
pair, elec
= −
1
E
dE
dx

pair, elec
=
Z
A

0.073 ln

2E/M
µ
1 +g Z
2/3
E/M
µ

−0.31

×10
−6
cm
2
/g (22)
Here g = 4.4 ×10
−5
for hydrogen and g = 1.95 ×10
−5
for other materials.
The cross section for direct pair production as a function of fractional energy transfer ν is
shown in Fig. 4.
4.3. Photonuclear interactions
Several approaches have been developed to calculate the muon photonuclear cross section. The
most widely used is that of Bezrukov and Bugaev [52]:

nucl
=
α


γN
(ε) ν

0.75 G(x)
¸
κ ln

1 +
m
2
1
t


κm
2
1
m
2
1
+t

2M
2
µ
t
¸
+ 0.25
¸
κ ln

1 +
m
2
2
t


2M
2
µ
t
¸
+
M
2
µ
2t
¸
0.75 G(x)
m
2
1
m
2
1
+t
+ 0.25
m
2
2
t
ln

1 +
t
m
2
2

(23)
Here ε is the energy loss of the muon and σ
γN
(ε) is the photoabsorption cross section defined below.
Other values are given by
ν =
ε
E
, t =
M
2
µ
ν
2
1 −ν
, κ = 1 −
2
ν
+
2
ν
2
, and G(x) =
3
x
3

x
2
2
−1 +e
−x
(1 +x)

, (24)
x = 0.00282 A
1/3
σ
γN
(ε), m
2
1
= 0.54 GeV
2
, and m
2
2
= 1.8 GeV
2
. This cross section gives results
consistent with other calculations to within 30% [4]. Recent measurements of photonuclear
interaction of muon in rock performed by the MACRO collaboration [53] agree quite well with
Monte Carlo simulations based on the Bezrukov and Bugaev cross section.
The total cross section σ
γN
(ε) for the photon-nucleon interaction appears as a normalization
parameter in Ref. 52, which proposes a simple parameterization:
σ
γN
(ε) (in µb) = 114.3 + 1.647 ln
2
(0.0213 ε) (25)
This approximation is good enough only for muon energy loss ε > 5 GeV. For smaller ε, we use
the experimental data given by Armstrong et al. [54]. The energy loss contribution is calculated
by numerical integration of the differential cross section given by Eq. (23). The use here of a more
precise photo-absorption cross section for ε < 5 than was used in the original model [52] does not
change the photonuclear part of −dE/dx appreciably.
The cross section for photonuclear interactions as a function of fractional energy transfer ν is
shown in Fig. 4.
LBNL-44742 17 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
T
o
t
a
l
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
)
T
o
t
a
l
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
)
T
o
t
a
l
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
)
10 GeV/c
µ

on iron
100 GeV/c
µ

on iron
1 TeV/c
µ

on iron
10 TeV/c
µ

on iron
Fractional energy transfer ν Fractional energy transfer ν
d
σ
/
d
ν



(
c
m
2
/
g
)
d
σ
/
d
ν



(
c
m
2
/
g
)
10
–5
10
–4
10
–3
0.01 0.1 10
–4
10
–3
0.01 0.1 1.0
P
a
ir
P
a
i
r
P
a
i
r
B
r
e
m
s
B
r
e
m
s
B
r
e
m
s
B
r
e
m
s
T
o
t
a
l

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
)

P
h
o
t
o
n
u
c
l
e
a
r
P
h
o
t
o
n
u
c
l
e
a
r
P
h
o
t
o
n
u
c
l
e
a
r
Photo-
nuclear
10
–5
10
–6
10
–7
10
–4
10
–3
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
10
–7
10
–6
10
–5
10
–4
10
–3
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
10
3
10
4
Pair
Figure 4: Differential cross section for total and radiative processes as a function
of the fractional energy transfer for muons on iron.
LBNL-44742 18 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 4: Comparison of b
tot
calculations with those deduced from Lohmann et
al. [4] and, in the case of standard rock, with Gaisser and Stanev [55]. b
tot
is
listed in units of 10
−6
g
−1
cm
2
.
Total energy = 10 GeV 100 GeV 1 TeV 10 TeV 100 TeV
Hydrogen
This calculation 0.941 1.345 1.773 2.079 2.284
Lohmann et al. 1.081 1.463 1.814 2.046 —
Carbon
This calculation 1.278 1.972 2.548 2.859 3.030
*Lohmann et al. 1.3 2.14 2.679 2.958 —
Iron
This calculation 3.290 5.701 7.392 8.110 8.371
Lohmann et al. 3.312 5.795 7.444 8.128 —
Uranium
This calculation 8.234 14.614 18.747 20.308 20.760
Lohmann et al. 8.046 14.790 18.870 20.360 —
Water
This calculation 1.439 2.279 2.959 3.313 3.497
*Lohmann et al. 1.5 2.49 3.125 3.459 —
Standard rock
This calculation 1.840 3.028 3.934 4.365 4.563
*Lohmann et al. 1.8 3.10 3.960 4.361 —
Gaisser & Stanev 1.91 3.12 4.01 4.40 —
Oxygen
This calculation 1.502 2.397 3.108 3.468 3.650
*Lohmann et al. 1.6 2.62 3.290 3.620 —
* Obtained from the Lohmann et al. energy loss tables assuming our values for
electronic losses (without the bremsstrahlung correction given by Eq. (13)).
The subtraction loses significance at 10 GeV, where the radiative contribution
is small.
4.4. Comparison with other works on muon radiative losses
Selected b values from our present calculations and according to Lohmann et al. [4] are listed in
Table 4 and plotted in Fig. 5 as a function of muon energy. Since Lohmann et al. did not give the
decomposition of the stopping powers except for H, Fe, and U, values of b
tot
for the materials given
in the right half of the figure were obtained by assuming our values of the ionizing losses (without
the bremsstrahlung correction given by Eq. (13), which was omitted in Ref. 4). This is justified
because for the fiducial cases H, Fe, and U our results agree with their values to within rounding
errors in the 4th place.
For Z > 10 the results are nearly identical. For smaller atomic number, and at low energies,
two effects are responsible for the differences:
1. In the nuclear part of bremsstrahlung, nuclear screening has only a weak energy dependence,
and produces about a 4% reduction for hydrogen and a 10% reduction for carbon. This is
apparent in our lower values of b
tot
for carbon and water as compared with Lohmann et al.
2. The cross sections for bremsstrahlung and pair production from atomic electrons decrease at
low energies because of electron recoil. In our calculations Lohmann et al.’s Z(Z +1) factor is
LBNL-44742 19 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Hydrogen
Z = 1
Iron
Z = 26
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Carbon
Z = 6
0
2
4
6
8
Water
0
5
10
15
20
Uranium
Z = 92
0
1
2
3
4
Muon energy (GeV)
1
0
6

b
(
E
)



(
g

1
c
m
2
)
1
0
6

b
(
E
)



(
g

1
c
m
2
)
1
0
6

b
(
E
)



(
g

1
c
m
2
)
1
0
6

b
(
E
)



(
g

1
c
m
2
)
1
0
6

b
(
E
)



(
g

1
c
m
2
)
1
0
6

b
(
E
)



(
g

1
c
m
2
)
b
tot
b
pair
b
nuc
b
tot
b
pair
b
brems
b
nuc
b
tot
b
pair
b
brems
b
nuc
100 10 2 1000 10
4
10
5
Muon energy (GeV)
100 10 2 1000 10
4
10
5
b
tot
b
pair
b
brems
b
nuc
b
tot
b
pair
b
brems
b
nuc
b
tot
b
pair
b
brems
b
nuc
Standard rock
0
1
2
3
b
brems
Figure 5: b-values for a sampling of materials. Solid lines represent our results,
while the dashed/dotted lines are from Lohmann et al. [4]. The circles for
standard rock are from Gaisser and Stanev [55].
LBNL-44742 20 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
replaced by Z(Z+0) in the low-energy limit, so that for hydrogen our contributions to these pro-
cesses for 1–10 GeV are smaller by nearly a factor of two. Similarly, in the low-energy limit our
bremsstrahlung and pair production contributions for carbon are 6/7 of Lohmann et al.’s values.
The CERN RD 34 collaboration has measured the energy loss spectrum of 150 GeV muons
in iron [56]. The energy deposition was measured in prototype hadron calorimeter modules
for the ATLAS detector. Most probable electronic loss was subtracted, as was background from
photonuclear interactions (which in this case is only about 7% of the total cross section). The
remaining sensitivity was to energy loss by pair production (dominant at the smallest energy trans-
fers, 0.01 < ν < 0.03), knock-on electrons (δ rays, included in the high-energy tail of the electronic
loss and dominating for 0.03 < ν < 0.12), and bremsstrahlung (dominant for ν > 0.12). The RD 34
experimental results shown in Fig. 6 are expressed as the fractional deviation from the present
calculations, where the Kelner et al. [14] model (basically that of Petrukhin and Shestakov) is used
to obtain the bremsstrahlung component important at large ν. The fractional deviations from our
results are also shown for the CCFR collaboration’s revision of the Petrukhin and Shestakov cross
section [43] and Rozental’s formula [57]. The present calculation describes the data reasonably
well, while the others are evidently less successful.
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.10 1.00
Fractional energy transfer ν
–0.30
–0.20
–0.10
–0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

P
&
S

t
h
e
o
r
y
Rozental
P&S via CCFR
Figure 6: RD 34 measurements of energy losses by 150 GeV muons in iron [56],
shown as fractional deviations from the present calculation, including bremsstrahlung
via Kelner et al. [14]. Heavy error bars indicate statistical errors only, while
the light bars include systematic errors combined in quadrature. Deviations of
alternate models from our calculations are shown by the solid line (Rozental’s for-
mula [57]) and the dashed line (the CCFR collaboration’s revision of the Petrukhin
and Shestakov cross section [43]) .
LBNL-44742 21 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
4.5. Muon critical energy
Equation (5) defines the muon critical energy E
µc
as the energy for which electronic and radiative
losses are equal. E
µc
for the chemical elements is shown in Fig. 7. The equality of electronic
and radiative losses comes at a higher energy for gases than for solids and liquids because of the
smaller density-effect correction for gases. Empirical functions have been fitted to these data for
gases and for solids/liquids, in both cases excluding hydrogen from the fits. Since E
µc
depends
upon ionization potentials and density-effect parameters as well as Z, the fits cannot be exact.
Potassium, rubidium, and cesium are 3.6%, 3.2% and 3.4% high, respectively, while beryllium is
3.8% low. Most of the other solids and liquids fall within 2.5% of the fitted function. Among gases
the worst fit is for neon (1.9% high).
100
200
400
700
1000
2000
4000
E
µ
c

(
G
e
V
)
1 2 5 10 20 50 100
Z
7980 GeV
_____________
(Z + 1.94)
0.885
6590 GeV
_____________
(Z + 1.92)
0.880
H He Li Be B CNONe Sn Fe
Solids
Gases
Figure 7: Muon critical energy for the chemical elements. As discussed in the
text, the fitted functions shown in the figure cannot be exact, and are for guidance
only.
4.6. Fluctuations in radiative energy loss
The radiative cross sections at several energies are shown in Fig. 4. The bremsstrahlung cross
section varies roughly as 1/ν over most of the range (where ν is the fraction of the muon’s energy
transferred in a collision), while for pair production the distribution varies as ν
−3
to ν
−2
(see also
Ref. 58). “Hard” losses are therefore more probable in bremsstrahlung, and in fact energy losses
due to pair production may very nearly be treated as continuous. The photonuclear cross section
has almost the same shape as the bremsstrahlung cross section at high ν, but it is about an order
of magnitude lower.
An example illustrating the fluctuations is shown in Fig. 8. The distribution of final muon
momenta was obtained by following 10
5
1 TeV/c muons through 3 m (2360 g/cm
2
) of iron, using
the MARS14 Monte Carlo code [59]. Our result is in nearly exact agreement with results obtained
earlier with TRAMU [58]. The most probable loss is 8 GeV, or 3.4 MeV g
−1
cm
2
. Our tables list
a stopping power in iron as 9.82 MeV g
−1
cm
2
for a 1 TeV muon, so that the mean loss should be
23 GeV, for a final energy (≈ momentum × c) of 977 GeV, far below the peak. This is also the
mean calculated from the simulated output.
LBNL-44742 22 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
950 960 970 980 990 1000
Final momentum p [GeV/c] Final momentum p [GeV/c]
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
1 TeV muons
on 3 m Fe
Mean
977 GeV/c
Median
987 GeV/c
0 200 400 600 800 1000
10
–3
10
–4
0.01
0.10
1.0
d
N
/
d
p



[
1
/
(
G
e
V
/
c
)
]
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

a
b
o
v
e


p
FWHM
9 GeV/c
Figure 8: The momentum distribution of 1 TeV/c muons after traversing 3 m
of iron, as obtained with the MARS14 Monte Carlo code [59]. The comparative
rarity of very low final momenta follows from the approach of the cross sections
to zero as ν →0.
The full width at half maximum is 9 GeV/c, or 0.9%. The median is 988 GeV/c. 10% of the
muons lost more than 3.2% of their energy and 2.6% lost more than 10% of their energy. Three
out of the 10
5
candidates stopped in the iron, presumably because of very inelastic photonuclear
interactions.
The classic case of the propagation of very high-energy muons in “standard rock” is discussed
in Ref. 60 and references therein. Of special interest is Figure 3 of that paper, showing the survival
probabilities as a function of depth for muons from 1 TeV to 10
6
TeV. The effects of the “radiative
tail” are enormous; at 10
6
TeV only about 15% of the muons reach the CSDA range. At 10 TeV
about half of them do, giving some indication of the usefulness of our CSDA ranges.
Treatment of radiative loss fluctuations in local energy deposit, range, or direction is beyond
the scope of this paper. It is usually handled by Monte Carlo methods [58,60,61], although
moment expansions are sometimes used when likelihoods need to be assigned to individual events.
Electronic-loss straggling of high energy muons is described using a modified Vavilov distribution
in Ref. 62.
5. Tabulated data
The contents of the main tables are shown in Tables 5–9. In this section we discuss the rationale
in the selection of the elements, simple compounds, polymers, and biological materials for which
tables of muon range-energy loss and radiative loss parameters are provided.
All “common” elements were selected. This included all elements with Z ≤ 38 (strontium),
most elements through Z = 58 (cerium), and the more common heavy elements through Z = 94
(plutonium). Dysprosium (Z = 66) was included to avoid a large gap in Z between cerium and
tantalum (Z = 73). The list is given in Table 5.
Cryogenic liquid forms of most of the elemental room-temperature gases (radon is the exception)
are fairly common in laboratories, and hence were included as well. Because of differences in the
density effect corrections, ionization energy loss differ between liquid and gaseous forms. Radiative
losses are not affected by density, but the muon critical energy, where the electronic and radiative
losses are the same, can be quite different. We have excluded gaseous bromine, (boiling point
LBNL-44742 23 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
58.8

C, although it is tabulated by Sternheimer et al. [5]. For carbon, two forms with different
densities appear. In all, 74 range/energy-loss tables are given for 63 elements
We should not overemphasize these differences: Related materials have similar stopping-power
properties when these are listed in MeV cm
2
/g (as we do) rather than in MeV/cm. Liquid and
gaseous xenon are not dissimilar in spite of a density ratio of 540. Plutonium is more than twice as
dense as bismuth, but their stopping powers differ by only 5% at minimum ionization. The stopping
powers of hydrocarbons are quite similar, as are those of many polymers and biological materials.
Atomic weights are given to the available significance. This varies with element, since the
isotopic composition of samples from different sources varies. In general the atomic weights of
elements with only one isotope are known to great precision [63].
The same “commonness” criterion was applied to the selection of the simple compounds listed
in Table 6, with some qualifications: We limited ourselves to the compounds listed by Sternheimer
et al. [5], which meant that certain common compounds such as NaCl were not available. Common
inorganic scintillators (BaF
2
, BGO, CsI, LiF, LiI, NaI) are present. Materials such as trichloroethy-
lene are included because of their role in important physics experiments. The list contains perhaps
more hydrocarbons than necessary, in part to show the change of stopping power behavior as the
H/C ratio changes (note the difference between acetylene and ethane). Liquid water and steam are
both listed. Dry ice was included with some difficulty.
Polymers are listed in Table 7. Their energy loss behavior is quite similar except in the case of
Teflon, which contains no hydrogen. “Thin film” polymers (Mylar, Kapton) were omitted. Polymers
used for plastic scintillators (acrylic, polystyrene, polyvinyltolulene) are included. In some cases
the name, like acrylic or polycarbonate, describes a family of polymers. The chemistry given is
typical, and no great variation is to be expected except perhaps for “Bakelite,” which is not very
well characterized. Where space permits, the formula is given in such a way as to convey as much
structural information as possible.
Mixtures of interest are given in Table 8. Muon energy loss in air is of great current interest,
given atmospheric neutrino observations. Photographic emulsion is of more historic interest. Except
for dry air (and, by definition, standard rock) none of the materials is particularly well characterized.
The somewhat arbitrary concrete recipe is taken from The Reactor Handbook [64], and may be
found, along with the other compositions, in Ref. 26.
For at least two generations, the depth of underground muon experiments has been reduced
to depth in “standard rock.” This is by definition the overburden of the Cayuga Rock Salt Mine
near Ithaca, New York, where K. Greisen and collaborators made seminal observations of muons at
substantial depths [1]. Ref. 1 says only “Most of the ground consists of shales of various types, with
average density 2.65 g/cm
2
and average atomic number 11.” Menon and Murthy later extended the
definition: Z
2
/A = 5.5, Z/A = 0.5, and and ρ = 2.65 g/cm
2
[65]. It was thus not-quite-sodium.
Lohmann et al. [4] further assumed the mean excitation energy and density effect parameters were
those of calcium carbonate, with no adjustments for the slight density difference. We use their
definition for this most important material.
Sternheimer et al. [5] list 14 biological materials and “phantoms,” mixtures which have nearly
identical responses to radiation as the biological materials they replace. Omitted materials can be
approximated by those on the list: Brain (ICRP), lung (ICRP), skin (ICRP), testes (ICRP), soft
tissue (ICRU 4-component), and striated muscle (ICRU) are quite similar to soft tissue (ICRP), as
are several included materials such as eye lens (ICRP) and skeletal muscle (ICRP). Compact bone
(ICRU) is similar to cortical bone (ICRP).
LBNL-44742 24 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 5: Index of tables for selected chemical elements. Physical states are indicated by
“G” for gas, “D” for diatomic gas, “L” for liquid, and “S” for solid. Gases are evaluated
at one atmosphere and 20

C. The corresponding cryogenic liquids are evaluated at their
boiling points at one atmosphere, and carbon is evaluated at several typical densities.
Atomic weights are given to their experimental significance. Except where noted, densities
are as given by Sternheimer, Berger, and Seltzer [5].
Element Symbol Z A State ρ −dE/dx
min
E
µc
−dE/dx b Notes
[g/cm
3
] [MeV cm
2
/g] [GeV] & Range
Hydrogen gas H 1 1.00794 D 8.375 × 10
−5
4.103 3611. I– 1 VI– 1
Liquid hydrogen H 1 1.00794 L 7.080 × 10
−2
4.034 3102. I– 2 VI– 1 1
Helium gas He 2 4.002602 G 1.663 × 10
−4
1.937 2351. I– 3 VI– 2
Liquid helium He 2 4.002602 L 0.125 1.936 2020. I– 4 VI– 2 2
Lithium Li 3 6.941 S 0.534 1.639 1578. I– 5 VI– 3
Beryllium Be 4 9.012182 S 1.848 1.595 1328. I– 6 VI– 4
Boron B 5 10.811 S 2.370 1.623 1169. I– 7 VI– 5
Carbon (compact) C 6 12.0107 S 2.265 1.745 1056. I– 8 VI– 6
Carbon (graphite) C 6 12.0107 S 1.700 1.753 1065. I– 9 VI– 6
Nitrogen gas N 7 14.00674 D 1.165 × 10
−3
1.825 1153. I–10 VI– 7
Liquid nitrogen N 7 14.00674 L 0.807 1.813 982. I–11 VI– 7 2
Oxygen gas O 8 15.9994 D 1.332 × 10
−3
1.801 1050. I–12 VI– 8
Liquid oxygen O 8 15.9994 L 1.141 1.788 890. I–13 VI– 8 2
Fluorine gas F 9 18.9984032 D 1.580 × 10
−3
1.676 959. I–14 VI– 9
Liquid fluorine F 9 18.9984032 L 1.507 1.634 810. I–15 VI– 9 2
Neon gas Ne 10 20.1797 G 8.385 × 10
−4
1.724 906. I–16 VI–10
Liquid neon Ne 10 20.1797 L 1.204 1.695 759. I–17 VI–10 2
Sodium Na 11 22.989770 S 0.971 1.639 711. I–18 VI–11
Magnesium Mg 12 24.3050 S 1.740 1.674 658. I–19 VI–12
Aluminum Al 13 26.981538 S 2.699 1.615 612. I–20 VI–13
Silicon Si 14 28.0855 S 2.329 1.664 581. I–21 VI–14 1
Phosphorus P 15 30.973761 S 2.200 1.613 551. I–22 VI–15
Sulfur S 16 32.066 S 2.000 1.652 526. I–23 VI–16
Chlorine gas Cl 17 35.4527 D 2.995 × 10
−3
1.630 591. I–24 VI–17
Liquid chlorine Cl 17 35.4527 L 1.574 1.608 504. I–25 VI–17 2
Argon gas Ar 18 39.948 G 1.662 × 10
−3
1.519 571. I–26 VI–18
Liquid argon Ar 18 39.948 L 1.396 1.508 483. I–27 VI–18 2
Potassium K 19 39.0983 S 0.862 1.623 470. I–28 VI–19
Calcium Ca 20 40.078 S 1.550 1.655 445. I–29 VI–20
Scandium Sc 21 44.955910 S 2.989 1.522 420. I–30 VI–21
Titanium Ti 22 47.867 S 4.540 1.477 401. I–31 VI–22
Vanadium V 23 50.9415 S 6.110 1.436 383. I–32 VI–23
Chromium Cr 24 51.9961 S 7.180 1.456 369. I–33 VI–24
Manganese Mn 25 54.938049 S 7.440 1.428 357. I–34 VI–25
Iron Fe 26 55.845 S 7.874 1.451 345. I–35 VI–26
Cobalt Co 27 58.933200 S 8.900 1.419 334. I–36 VI–27
Nickel Ni 28 58.6934 S 8.902 1.468 324. I–37 VI–28
Copper Cu 29 63.546 S 8.960 1.403 315. I–38 VI–29
Zinc Zn 30 65.39 S 7.133 1.411 308. I–39 VI–30
Gallium Ga 31 69.723 S 5.904 1.379 302. I–40 VI–31
Germanium Ge 32 72.61 S 5.323 1.370 295. I–41 VI–32
LBNL-44742 25 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 5: continued
Element Symbol Z A State ρ −dE/dx
min
E
µc
−dE/dx b Notes
[g/cm
3
] [MeV cm
2
/g] [GeV] & Range
Arsenic As 33 74.92160 S 5.730 1.370 287. I–42 VI–33
Selenium Se 34 78.96 S 4.500 1.343 282. I–43 VI–34
Bromine Br 35 79.904 L 3.103 1.385 278. I–44 VI–35 2
Krypton gas Kr 36 83.80 G 3.478 × 10
−3
1.357 321. I–45 VI–36
Liquid krypton Kr 36 83.80 L 2.418 1.357 274. I–46 VI–36 2
Rubidium Rb 37 85.4678 S 1.532 1.356 271. I–47 VI–37
Strontium Sr 38 87.62 S 2.540 1.353 262. I–48 VI–38
Zirconium Zr 40 91.224 S 6.506 1.349 244. I–49 VI–39
Niobium Nb 41 92.90638 S 8.570 1.343 237. I–50 VI–40
Molybdenum Mo 42 95.94 S 10.220 1.330 232. I–51 VI–41
Palladium Pd 46 106.42 S 12.020 1.289 214. I–52 VI–42
Silver Ag 47 107.8682 S 10.500 1.299 211. I–53 VI–43
Cadmium Cd 48 112.411 S 8.650 1.277 208. I–54 VI–44
Indium In 49 114.818 S 7.310 1.278 206. I–55 VI–45
Tin Sn 50 118.710 S 7.310 1.263 202. I–56 VI–46
Antimony Sb 51 121.760 S 6.691 1.259 200. I–57 VI–47
Iodine I 53 126.90447 S 4.930 1.263 195. I–58 VI–48
Xenon gas Xe 54 131.29 G 5.485 × 10
−3
1.255 226. I–59 VI–49
Liquid xenon Xe 54 131.29 L 2.953 1.255 195. I–60 VI–49 2
Cesium Cs 55 132.90545 S 1.873 1.254 195. I–61 VI–50
Barium Ba 56 137.327 S 3.500 1.231 189. I–62 VI–51
Cerium Ce 58 140.116 S 6.657 1.234 180. I–63 VI–52
Dysprosium Dy 66 162.50 S 8.550 1.175 161. I–64 VI–53
Tantalum Ta 73 180.9479 S 16.654 1.149 145. I–65 VI–54
Tungsten W 74 183.84 S 19.300 1.145 143. I–66 VI–55
Platinum Pt 78 195.078 S 21.450 1.128 137. I–67 VI–56
Gold Au 79 196.96655 S 19.320 1.134 136. I–68 VI–57
Mercury Hg 80 200.59 L 13.546 1.130 136. I–69 VI–58
Lead Pb 82 207.2 S 11.350 1.122 134. I–70 VI–59
Bismuth Bi 83 208.98038 S 9.747 1.128 133. I–71 VI–60
Thorium Th 90 232.0381 S 11.720 1.098 124. I–72 VI–61
Uranium U 92 238.0289 S 18.950 1.081 120. I–73 VI–62
Plutonium Pu 94 244.064197 S 19.840 1.071 117. I–74 VI–63
Notes:
1. Density effect parameters adjusted to this density using Eq. (A.8).
2. Density effect parameters calculated via the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm discussed in Appendix A.
LBNL-44742 26 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 6: Index of tables for selected simple compounds. Physical states are indicated by
“G” for gas, “D” for diatomic gas, “L” for liquid, and “S” for solid. Gases are evaluated
at one atmosphere and 20

C. Except where noted, densities are those given by Stern-
heimer, Berger, and Seltzer [5]. Composition not explained may be found in Seltzer and
Berger [26] or in the file properties.datat http://pdg.lbl.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.
Compound or mixture Z/A State ρ −dE/dx
min
E
µc
−dE/dx b Notes
[g/cm
3
] [MeV cm
2
/g] [GeV] & Range
Acetone (CH
3
CHCH
3
) 0.55097 L 0.790 2.003 1160. II– 1 VII– 1
Acetylene (C
2
H
2
) 0.53768 G 1.097 × 10
−3
2.025 1400. II– 2 VII– 2
Aluminum oxide (Al
2
O
3
) 0.49038 S 3.970 1.647 705. II– 3 VII– 3
Barium fluoride (BaF
2
) 0.42207 S 4.890 1.303 227. II– 4 VII– 4
Beryllium oxide (BeO) 0.47979 S 3.010 1.665 975. II– 5 VII– 5
Bismuth germanate (BGO, Bi
4
(GeO
4
)
3
) 0.42065 S 7.130 1.251 176. II– 6 VII– 6
Butane (C
4
H
10
) 0.59497 G 2.493 × 10
−3
2.278 1557. II– 7 VII– 7
Calcium carbonate (CaCO
3
) 0.49955 S 2.800 1.686 630. II– 8 VII– 8
Calcium fluoride CaF
2
0.49670 S 3.180 1.655 564. II– 9 VII– 9
Calcium oxide (CaO) 0.49929 S 3.300 1.650 506. II–10 VII–10
Carbon dioxide (CO
2
) 0.49989 G 1.842 × 10
−3
1.819 1094. II–11 VII–11
Solid carbon dioxide (dry ice) 0.49989 S 1.563 1.787 927. II–12 VII–11 2
Cesium iodide (CsI) 0.41569 S 4.510 1.243 193. II–13 VII–12
Diethyl ether ((CH
3
CH
2
)
2
O) 0.56663 L 0.714 2.072 1220. II–14 VII–13
Ethane (C
2
H
6
) 0.59861 G 1.253 × 10
−3
2.304 1603. II–15 VII–14
Ethanol (C
2
H
5
OH) 0.56437 L 0.789 2.054 1178. II–16 VII–15
Lithium fluoride (LiF) 0.46262 S 2.635 1.614 903. II–17 VII–16
Lithium iodide (LiI) 0.41939 S 3.494 1.272 207. II–18 VII–17
Methane (CH
4
) 0.62334 G 6.672 × 10
−4
2.417 1715. II–19 VII–18
Octane (C
8
H
18
) 0.57778 L 0.703 2.123 1312. II–20 VII–19
Paraffin (CH
3
(CH
2
)
n≈23
CH
3
) 0.57275 S 0.930 2.088 1287. II–21 VII–20
Plutonium dioxide (PuO
2
) 0.40583 S 11.460 1.158 136. II–22 VII–21
Liquid propane (C
3
H
8
) 0.58962 L 0.493 2.198 1365. II–23 VII–22 1
Silicon dioxide (fused quartz, SiO
2
) 0.49930 S 2.200 1.699 708. II–24 VII–23 1
Sodium iodide (NaI) 0.42697 S 3.667 1.305 223. II–25 VII–24
Toluene (C
6
H
5
CH
3
) 0.54265 L 0.867 1.972 1203. II–26 VII–25
Trichloroethylene (C
2
HCl
3
) 0.48710 L 1.460 1.656 568. II–27 VII–26
Water (liquid) (H
2
O) 0.55509 L 1.000 1.992 1032. II–28 VII–27
Water (vapor) (H
2
O) 0.55509 G 7.562 × 10
−4
2.052 1231. II–29 VII–27
Notes:
1. Density effect parameters adjusted to this density using Eq. (A.8). Ref. 5 lists 2.32 g/cm
3
for SiO
2
,
which may be the density of cristobalite. The density of crystalline quartz is about 2.65 g/cm
3
, and the
density of fused quartz is typically 2.20 g/cm
3
.
2. Density effect parameters calculated via the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm discussed in Appendix A.
LBNL-44742 27 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 7: Index of tables for selected high polymers. Except where noted, densities are
those given by Sternheimer, Berger, and Seltzer [5]; actual densities of polymers will
vary. Composition not explained may be found in Seltzer and Berger [26] or in the file
properties.dat at http://pdg.lbl.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.
Compound or mixture Z/A ρ −dE/dx
min
E
µc
−dE/dx b Notes
[g/cm
3
] [MeV cm
2
/g] [GeV] & Range
Bakelite [C
43
H
38
O
7
]
n
0.52792 1.250 1.889 1110. III– 1 VIII– 1
Nylon (type 6, 6/6) [C
12
H
22
O
2
N
2
]
n
0.54790 1.180 1.973 1156. III– 2 VIII– 2 1
Polycarbonate [OC
6
H
4
C(CH
3
)
2
C
6
H
4
OCO]
n
0.52697 1.200 1.886 1104. III– 3 VIII– 3
Polyethylene [C
2
H
4
]
n
0.57034 0.890 2.079 1282. III– 4 VIII– 4 1
Polymethylmethacrylate (acrylic) 0.53937 1.190 1.929 1107. III– 5 VIII– 5
Polystyrene [C
6
H
5
CHCH
2
]
n
0.53768 1.060 1.936 1183. III– 6 VIII– 6
Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) [C
2
F
4
]
n
0.47992 2.200 1.671 853. III– 7 VIII– 7
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) [CH
2
CHCl]
n
0.51201 1.300 1.779 696. III– 8 VIII– 8
Polyvinyltoluene [2-CH
3
C
6
H
4
CHCH
2
]
n
0.54141 1.032 1.956 1194. III– 9 VIII– 9
Notes:
1. Density effect parameters adjusted to this density using Eq. (A.8).
Table 8: Index of tables for selected mixtures. Physical states are indicated by “G” for
gas and “S” for solid. Gases are evaluated at one atmosphere and 20

C. Densities are
those given by Sternheimer, Berger, and Seltzer [5]. Composition may be found in Seltzer
and Berger [26] or in the file properties.dat at
http://pdg.lbl.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.
Compound or mixture Z/A State ρ −dE/dx
min
E
µc
−dE/dx b
[g/cm
3
] [MeV cm
2
/g] [GeV] & Range
Air (dry, 1 atm) 0.49919 G 1.205 × 10
−3
1.815 1114. IV– 1 IX– 1
Concrete 0.50274 S 2.300 1.711 700. IV– 2 IX– 2
Lead glass 0.42101 S 6.220 1.255 175. IV– 3 IX– 3
Photographic emulsion 0.43663 S 6.470 1.313 235. IV– 4 IX– 4
Plate glass 0.49731 S 2.400 1.684 670. IV– 5 IX– 5
Standard rock 0.50000 S 2.650 1.688 693. IV– 6 IX– 6
LBNL-44742 28 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Table 9: Index of tables for selected biological materials. Physical states are indicated
by “L” for liquid and “S” for solid. Densities are those given by Sternheimer, Berger,
and Seltzer [5]. Composition may be found in Seltzer and Berger [26] or in the file
properties.dat at http://pdg.lbl.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.
Biological material Z/A State ρ −dE/dx
min
E
µc
−dE/dx b
or phantom [g/cm
3
] [MeV cm
2
/g] [GeV] & Range
A-150 tissue-equivalent plastic 0.54903 S 1.127 1.978 1158. V– 1 X– 1
Adipose tissue (ICRP) 0.55947 S 0.920 2.029 1183. V– 2 X– 2
Blood (ICRP) 0.54995 L 1.060 1.971 1032. V– 3 X– 3
Cortical bone (ICRP) 0.52130 S 1.850 1.803 748. V– 4 X– 4
C-552 air-equivalent plastic 0.49969 S 1.760 1.760 953. V– 5 X– 5
Eye lens (ICRP) 0.54977 S 1.100 1.971 1057. V– 6 X– 6
MS20 tissue substitute 0.53886 S 1.000 1.934 1056. V– 7 X– 7
Skeletal muscle (ICRP) 0.54938 S 1.040 1.970 1032. V– 8 X– 8
Soft tissue (ICRP) 0.55121 S 1.000 1.982 1063. V– 9 X– 9
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Felix Boehm (Caltech) for the invitation to write this report, and for his
(and the editor’s) gentle reminders and infinite patience while the work was in progress. Alberto
Fass´ o (SLAC) was kind enough to make available his ASCII files of the density-effect coefficients
and composition, vastly aiding verification of our parameters. Steve Seltzer (NIST) answered our
questions and made available code which produced computer-readable files of the main tables of
ICRU 49, making comparisons with our results much easier. Hans Bichsel, our “ghost author,”
first provided us with an exhaustive and supportive referee’s report. This led to many changes
and additions, including two new figures. Then, via conversations and email, further changes were
made, and his suggested wording was used in parts of Sections 3.1 and 3.3. Finally, Bob Naumann
(Dartmouth) carefully checked and corrected our structures for polymers. This work was supported
by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.
LBNL-44742 29 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Appendix A. Stopping power and density-effect parameters for compounds
and mixtures
For most of the materials for which tables are given in this report, the relevant effective excitation
energy and density-effect parameters have already been tabulated, and should be used. This section
concerns how to deal with an untabulated compound or mixture.
It is usual to think of a compound or mixture as made up of thin layers of the pure elements
(or, better, constituent compounds for which tabulated data are available) in the right proportion
(Bragg additivity [66]) . Let n
j
be the number of the jth kind of atom in a compound (it need not
be an integer for a mixture), and w
j
its weight fraction:
w
j
= n
j
A
j

¸
k
n
k
A
k
A.1
Then

dE
dx

=
¸
j
w
j
dE
dx

j
A.2
When the Bethe-Bloch equation is inserted and the radiative terms added, the Z-dependent terms
can be sorted out to find that the mixture or compound is equivalent to a single material with

Z
A

=
¸
j
w
j
Z
j
A
j
=
¸
j
n
j
Z
j

¸
j
n
j
A
j
ln I =
¸
j
w
j
(Z
j
/A
j
) lnI
j

¸
j
w
j
(Z
j
/A
j
) =
¸
j
n
j
Z
j
ln I
j

¸
j
n
j
Z
j
b (E) =
¸
j
w
j
b
j
(E)
A.3
There are pitfalls in actually using Eq. (A.3) to calculate I. Since the electrons in a compound
are more tightly bound than in the constituent elements, the effective I
j
are in general higher than
those of the constituent elements. Exceptions are provided by diatomic gases and by metals in
metallic alloys or compounds. Berger and Seltzer discuss ways to extend the Bragg additivity rule
in lieu of a detailed calculation [26]:
(a) For a select list of materials (carbon and some common gases), they propose alternate mean
excitation energies in their Table 5.1 (or Table 6 in Ref. 26).
(b) For other elements, the excitation energies are multiplied by 1.13 before calculation of the mean
(the “13% rule”). Although it is is not said, it would seem sensible to apply this rule in the case
of a tightly-bound material such as CsI, and not apply it in the case of a metallic compound
like Nb
3
Sn.
(c) Both are superseded by experimental numbers when available, as in the case of SiO
2
.
Bragg additivity has little meaning in calculating the density-effect correction. If the material
of interest is not available in the tables of Ref. 5, then the algorithm given by Sternheimer and
Peierls [6] should be used. Their recipe is given more succinctly in the EGS4 manual [28], and the
following algorithm is adopted from that version for the parameterization of Section 3.4.
(a) I is obtained as described above
(b) k is always taken as 3.00
(c) C = 2 ln(I/¯ hω
p
) + 1, with the plasma energy ¯ hω
p
obtained using the expression from Table 1.
LBNL-44742 30 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
(d) For solids and liquids,
x
1
=

2.0 if I < 100 eV, and x
0
=

0.2 if C < 3.681
0.326 C −1.0 otherwise
3.0 if I ≥ 100 eV, and x
0
=

0.2 if C < 5.215
0.326 C −1.5 otherwise
A.4
(e) In the case of gases,
x
0
=

1.6 and x
1
= 4.0 if C < 10.0
1.7 and x
1
= 4.0 if 10.0 ≤ C < 10.5
1.8 and x
1
= 4.0 if 10.5 ≤ C < 11.0
1.9 and x
1
= 4.0 if 11.0 ≤ C < 11.5
2.0 and x
1
= 4.0 if 11.5 ≤ C < 12.25
2.0 and x
1
= 5.0 if 12.25 ≤ C < 13.804
0.326 C −1.5
and x
1
= 5.0 if C ≥ 13.804
A.5
(f)
a =
C −2 (ln 10) x
0
(x
1
−x
0
)
3
. A.6
We have used this algorithm to calculate the density-effect coefficients for cryogenic liquids,
which are not tabulated by Sternheimer, Berger, and Seltzer [5]. In this case, I for the gas was used.
One problem remains: Given the density-effect parameters, either from the literature [5] or
from the algorithm given above, how does one modify them for the same material at a different
density? This problem occurs for gases at different pressures, or for solid and liquids at different
densities than those tabulated. In an early paper [6], Sternheimer noted that under quite general
conditions
δ
r
(p) = δ

p

r

, A.7
where r = ρ/ρ
0
, the ratio of desired to tabulated densities, and the subscript r indicates the quantity
evaluated at the desired density. This implies [6] that
C
r
= C −ln r
x
0r
= x
0

1
2
log
10
r
x
1r
= x
1

1
2
log
10
r .
A.8
It is easily shown by matching different regions in Eq. (11) that the parameters a and k are
unchanged by the transformation.
This method was used to correct the parameters for several materials for which we prefer
different densities, for example the density of fused silica. Liquid hydrogen is tabulated for the
“bubble chamber density,” for which we scaled the parameters to the density of liquid hydrogen at
its boiling point at a pressure of one atmosphere.
Both algorithms were checked by calculating −dE/dx several ways, taking advantage of the
fact that Ref. 5 lists both gaseous and liquid helium, three densities of carbon, and both steam and
liquid water. The comparisons are discussed at the end of Sect. 3.4.
LBNL-44742 31 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Appendix B. Direct pair production from screened nuclei
Nikishov’s analytic form for the cross section is given by [50]

pair, nucl
=
(2αr
e
Z)
2
π
(1 −ν)
ν
¸
(f
1
+θf
3
) ln


m
e


2
+θφ
4
+I

, B.1
where ε = νE is the energy transferred to the e
+
e

pair, and θ = m
2
e
/M
2
. The functions in the
square brackets are given by
f
1
+θf
3
=
44
45z

16
45

4
9
θ −

7
9
+
8
45
z +
7
18

ln z
+
¸
16
45
z +
38
45

44
45z
+
4
3 (z + 4)
+

7
9
z −
2
9
+
8
3 (z + 4)

θ

B(z) ln
z
2
z
1
,
B.2
φ
2
+θφ
4
=

7
36
+
2
45
z +
7
72

ln
2
z
2
z
1

2
+ 2 ln
2
z

+

7
18
+
3
20
z +
7
36

ln z +
653
270

28
9z
+
2
3
θ
+
¸

3
10
z −
92
45
+
52
45z

2
9

7
18
z

θ

B(z) ln
z
2
z
1
+B(z)
¸

8
45
z −
19
45

8
45z

2
9
+
7
18
z

θ
¸
Li
2
(y) + 2 Li
2

1
z
2

+
3
2
ln
2
z
2
z
1

+

8
z
+zθ

B(z)
3 (z + 4)
×
¸
6 Li
2

1
z
2

−Li
2
(y) +
1
2
ln
2
z
2
z
1

,
B.3
where
z =
ν
2
θ (1 −ν)
, z
1,2
= B(z) ∓
1
2
, B(z) =

1
4
+
1
z
, y =
z
1
+z
2
z
2
2
,
Li
2
is the dilogarithm function (Spence’s integral evaluated for n = 2) [67], and
I =

7
9
+
8
45
z +
7
18

H −
¸
16
45
z +
38
45
+
16
45z
+

7
9
z +
4
9

θ

B(z) J
+
+
¸

16
45
z −
14
9

8
9w
+
2
45
z
w

4
5
z
w
2
+
2z
3 (w + 4)

7
9
z +
4
9
z
w

θ

B(w) I
+
+
¸
32
45
u
w

88
45z

16
45w
+
8
5
z
w
2
+
8
9
u
w
θ

B(u) ln
u
2
u
1
+
¸
68
45

16
45z
+
8
3w

2
3
z
w

8
9
θ

B(z) ln
z
2
z
1
+
104
45z

8
15w

62
27

8
9w
+
1
45
z
w
+
4
5
z
w
2
+
4
9
z
w
θ

ln z
+

1 +
1
2

1
3w

ln
2
u
2
u
1
−ln
2
z
2
z
1

+

8
z
+zθ

B(z)
3 (z + 4)

2J
(2)
+
+ ln
2
z
2
−ln
2
z
1

,
B.4
where
w = s

z, s =
2

γγ

Z
1/3
183

e


γγ

Z
1/3
151
,
u = w +z, γ = P
0
/M, γ

= P

0
/M
B.5
LBNL-44742 32 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
(u
1,2
, B(u) and w
1,2
, B(w) are the analogs of z
1,2
, B(z), i. e., u
1,2
= B(u) ∓
1
2
, etc.),
H = Li
2

z
u + 4

−Li
2

z + 4
u + 4

+ Li
2

z
z + 4

−2 Li
2

u
u + 4

+ Li
2

4w
u(z + 4)

+ Li
2

4z
u(w + 4)

−Li
2

4
w + 4

+
π
2
6
+ 2 ln (z
1
) ln (z
2
) −4 ln (u
1
) ln (u
2
) −ln
2
z + ln
2
(z + 4) −ln

1 +
4
w

ln (u + 4)
−ln(4w) ln (z + 4) + ln (16) ln (u + 4) −ln
2
(u + 4) + 2 ln
2
u
+ ln(u) ln

z + 4
4
w + 4
4w

−ln (z) ln

z + 4
4
u
w

, J
+
= J
(1)
+
+J
(2)
+
,
B.6
J
(1)
+
= 2 Li
2

1
z
2

−Li
2
(y) + ln (z
1
) ln
z
2
z
1
, y =
z
1
+z
2
z
2
2
, B.7
J
(2)
+
= Li
2

u
1
z
1

−Li
2

u
2
z
2

+ Li
2

z
1
z
1
+u
2

−Li
2

z
2
z
2
+u
1

+ ln

u
1
z
1

ln

1 −
u
1
z
1

−ln

u
2
z
2

ln

1 −
u
2
z
2

+ ln

z
2
z
i

ln [u(z
1
+u
2
)] ,
B.8
and, finally,
I
+
= Li
2

u
1
w
1

−Li
2

u
2
w
2

−2 Li
2

w
1
w
2

+ Li
2

w
1
w
1
+u
2

−Li
2

w
2
w
2
+u
1

+
π
2
3
+ ln

w
2
w
1

ln

w
1
+u
2
w
2
u
z

+ ln

u
1
w
1

ln

1 −
u
1
w
1

−ln

u
2
w
2

ln

1 −
u
2
w
2

.
B.9
LBNL-44742 33 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
References
1. P. H. Barrett, L. M. Bollinger, G. Cocconi, Y. Eisenberg, and K. Greisen, Rev. Mod. Phys.
24, 133 (1952).
2. R. M. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. 117, 485 (1960) 983–991 (1994).
3. “Stopping Powers and Ranges for Protons and Alpha Particles,” ICRU Report No. 49 (1993);
Tables and graphs of these data are available at http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/.
4. W. Lohmann, R. Kopp, and R. Voss, “Energy Loss of Muons in the Energy Range 1–10000 GeV,”
CERN Report 85–03 (1985).
5. R. M. Sternheimer, M. J. Berger, and S. M. Seltzer, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables
30, 261–271 (1984).
6. R. M. Sternheimer and R. F. Peierls, Phys. Rev. B3, 3681–3692 (1971).
7. P. J. Mohr and B. N. Taylor, “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical
Constants: 1998,” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 28, 1713–1852 (1999).
8. W. H. Barkas, W. Birnbaum, and F. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. 101, 778 (1956);
H. Bichsel, Phys. Rev. A41, 3642–3647 (1990).
9. E. Fermi and E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 72, 399–408 (1947).
10. J. Lindhard, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab, Mat.-Fys. Medd. 28, No. 8 (1954);
J. Lindhard, M. Scharff, and H. E. Schiøtt, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab, Mat.-Fys.
Medd. 33, No. 14 (1963).
11. T. Kaneko, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 53, 271–283 (1993).
12. H. H. Andersen and J. F. Ziegler, Hydrogen: Stopping Powers and Ranges in All Elements.
Vol. 3 of The Stopping and Ranges of Ions in Matter (Pergamon Press, 1977).
13. H. A. Bethe, “Quantenmechanic der Ein- und Zwei-Elektronen Probleme,’ Handbuch der
Physik, Vol. 24/1 (Springer-Berlin, 1933), p. 273.
14. S. R. Kelner, R. P. Kokoulin and A. A. Petrukhin, Phys. Atomic Nuclei 60, 576–583 (1997)
(Yad. Fiz. 60, 657 (1997)).
15. J. D. Jackson, Phys. Rev. D59, 017301 (1999).
16. M. S. Livingston and H. A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 9 245–390 (1937); see especially pp. 261–
276.
17. B. Rossi, High Energy Particles, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1952).
18. E. A. Uehling, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 4, 315 (1954).
19. U. Fano, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 13, 1 (1963).
20. M. Inokuti, Rev. Mod. Phys. 43, 297 (1971).
21. H. Bichsel, in American Institute of Phyics Handbook, 3rd ed., edited by E. D. Gray (McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1972), section 8d.
22. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975).
23. S. P Ahlen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 121 (1980).
LBNL-44742 34 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
24. H. Bichsel, in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics Handbook, edited by G. Drake, (Am.
Inst. Phys., 1996), Chap. 87.
25. H. Bethe, Ann. Phys. 5, 325 (1930).
26. S. M. Seltzer and M. J. Berger, Int. J. Appl. Radiat. 33, 1189–1218 (1982).
27. ICRU Report 37, “Stopping Powers for Electrons and Positrons,” International Commission
on Radiation Units and Measurements, Washington, DC (1984);
Tables and graphs of these data are available at http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/.
28. W.R. Nelson, H. Hirayama, and D. W. O. Rogers, “The EGS4 Code System,” SLAC-265,
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (Dec. 1985).
29. H. Bichsel, Phys. Rev. A46, 5761 (1992).
30. W. H. Barkas and M. J. Berger, “Tables of Energy Losses and Ranges of Heavy Charged
Particles,” in Studies in Penetration of Charged Particles in Matter, National Academy of
Sciences–National Research Council, Publication 1133 (1964), p. 103.
31. T. Hiraoka et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 39, 983–991 (1994).
32. P. T. Leung, Phys. Rev. A40, 5417 (1989) 983–991 (1994).
33. W. H. Barkas, N. J. Dyer, and H. H. Heckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 26 (1963).
34. M. Agnello et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 371 (1995).
35. R. M. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. 88, 851 (1952).
36. R. M. Sternheimer, S. M. Seltzer, and M. J. Berger, Phys. Rev. B26, 6067–6076 (1982).
37. S. M. Seltzer and M. J. Berger, Int. J. Appl. Radiat. 35, 665–676 (1984). This paper corrects
and extends the results of [26].
38. H. Bichsel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 663 (1960).
39. S. M. Seltzer, private communication.
40. J. D. Jackson and R. L. McCarthy, Phys. Rev. B6, 4131 (1972).
41. H. A. Bethe and W. Heitler, Proc. Roy. Soc. A146, 83 (1934);
R. M. Sternheimer, S. M. Seltzer, and M. J. Berger, Phys. Rev. B27, 6971 (1983) (erratum).
42. A. V. Petrukhin and V. V. Shestakov, Can. J. Phys. 46, S337 (1968).
43. W. K. Sakumoto et al., Phys. Rev. D45, 3042 (1992).
44. S. R. Kelner, R. P. Kokoulin and A. A. Petrukhin, preprint MSEPI 024-95, Moscow (1995),
available as CERN Preprint Server SCAN-9510048.
45. Y. M. Andreev and E. V. Bugaev, Phys. Rev. D55, 1233 (1997).
46. S. R. Kelner, R. P. Kokoulin and A. A. Petrukhin, Phys. Atomic Nuclei 62, 1894–1898 (1999).
47. G. Racah, Nuovo Cim. 16, 93 (1937).
48. S. R. Kelner and Yu. D. Kotov, Sov. Jour. Nucl. Phys. 7, 237 (1968) (Yad. Phys. 7, 360
(1968)).
49. R. P. Kokoulin and A. A. Petrukhin, Acta Physica Acad. Sci. Hung. 29 Suppl. 4, 277 (1970).
50. A. I. Nikishov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 27, 677–691 (1978) ((Yad. Phys. 27, 1281–1289 (1978)).
LBNL-44742 35 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
51. S. R. Kelner, Phys. Atomic Nuclei 61, 448 (1998) (Yad. Phys. 61, 511 (1998)).
52. L. B. Bezrukov and E. V. Bugaev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 33 635–643 (1981) (Yad. Phys. 33,
1195–1207 (1981)).
53. E. Scapparone et al., Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 75A, 397–400 (1999).
54. T. A. Armstrong et al., Phys. Rev. D5, 1640 (1972);
T. A. Armstrong et al., Nucl. Phys. B41, 445 (1972).
55. C. Caso et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C3, 1 (1998);
The values calculated in this paper are used in the 2000 revision of the Gaisser and Stanev
review in D. E. Groom et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C15, 1 (2000);
See also http://pdg.lbl.gov.
56. E. Berger et al., Z. Phys. C73, 455–463(1997).
57. I. L. Rozental Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 11, 49 (1968) (Usp. Phys. Nauk. 94, 91 (1968)).
58. A. Van Ginneken, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A251, 21–39 (1986).
59. N.V. Mokhov, “The MARS Code System User’s Guide,” Fermilab-FN-628 (1995);
N. V. Mokhov, S. I. Striganov, A. Van Ginneken, S. G. Mashnik, A. J. Sierk, J.Ranft, in
Proc. of the Fourth Workshop on Simulating Accelerator Radiation Environments (SARE-
4), Knoxville, TN, September 14-16, 1998, pp. 87–99, Fermilab-Conf-98/379 (1998), nucl-
th/9812038-v2-16-Dec-1998;
N. V. Mokhov, in Proc. of ICRS-9 International Conference on Radiation Shielding, (Tsukuba,
Ibaraki, Japan, 1999), J. Nucl. Sci. Tech., 1 (2000), pp. 167–171, Fermilab-Conf-00/066 (2000);
http://www-ap.fnal.gov/MARS/.
60. P. Lipari and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. D44, 3543 (1991).
61. S. I. Striganov, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 51A, 172 (1996).
62. S. I. Striganov, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A322, 225–230 (1992).
63. Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances, Pure and Appl. Chem. 68, 2339
(1996);
G. Audi and A. H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys. A565, 1 (1993).
64. The Reactor Handbook, 2nd ed. edited by R. C. Weast, (Interscience, New York, 1960), Vol. 1.
65. M. G. K. Menon and P. V. Ramana Murthy, in Progress In Elementary Particle and Cosmic
Ray Physics, (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1967), Vol. 9, 161–243.
66. W. H. Bragg and R. Kleeman, Philos. Mag. 10, 318 (1905).
67. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, National Bureau
of Standards Applied Mathematics Series, No. 55, (U. S. Gov. Printing Office, 1964). The
dilogarithm (Spence’s integral for n = 2) is given by Eq. 27.7.1. CERNLIB routine DDILOG
is used to calculate the function.
LBNL-44742 36 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001
D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range
Explanation of Tables
4
TABLE I: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for selected chemical elements.
The contents of Table I and other information are given in Table 5.
The header defines the element and state, and gives the parameters used to calculate
the electronic stopping power:
Z: Atomic number.
A: Atomic weight.
ρ: Density. Gas density is evaluated at 20

C.
I: Mean excitation energy.
a—δ
0
: Sternheimer et al. density effect parameters, as introduced in Sect. 3.4 and Eq. (11).
The body of the table presents ionizing energy loss (Eq. (15)) and the components
of radiative loss rate (see Eqs. (1) and (2), as well as CSDA range obtained by
integrating the total (Eq. (3)), as a function of the muon’s initial kinetic energy T.
The spacing of the independent variable is fairly uniform on a logarithmic scale.
The corresponding momentum p is also given. The table is interrupted to show the
points at which minimum ionization and muon critical energy (Eq. (5)) occur.
A radiative loss field is left blank if the stopping power contribution is less than 0.0001.
TABLE II: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for simple compounds.
The contents of TABLE II and other information are given in Table 6. The format
is identical with TABLE I, except that Z/A (Eq. (A.3)) replaces Z and A.
TABLE III: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for high polymers.
The contents of TABLE III and other information are given in Table 7. The format
is identical with TABLE II.
TABLE IV: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for mixtures.
The contents of TABLE IV and other information are given in Table 8. The format
is identical with TABLE II.
TABLE V: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for biological compounds.
The contents of TABLE V and other information are given in Table 9. The format
is identical with TABLE I, except that Z/A (Eq. (A.3))) replaces Z and A.
TABLE VI: b values for the elements listed in Table I.
Interpolation in log E is used to generate the b values shown in TABLE I and for
the ionizing loss calculations. The contents are listed in Table 5.
TABLE VII: b values for the compounds listed in TABLE II.
TABLE VII has the same format as TABLE III except that Z/A replaces Z and A.
The contents are listed in Table 6.
TABLE VIII: b values for the high polymers listed in TABLE III.
TABLE VII has the same format as TABLE VII. The contents are listed in Table 7.
TABLE IX: b values for the mixtures listed in TABLE IV.
TABLE VII has the same format as TABLE VII. The contents are listed in Table 8.
TABLE X: b values for the biological compounds listed in TABLE V.
TABLE VII has the same format as TABLE VII. The contents are listed in Table 9.
4
Computer-readable versions of these tables can be found at http://pdg.lbl.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties
LBNL-44742 37 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001

D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV

Muon Stopping Power and Range

Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Electronic energy losses of high-energy heavy particles . . . 3.1. Major contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Mean excitation energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Low-energy corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Density effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Other high-energy corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Bethe-Bloch equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7. Comparison with other ionizing energy loss calculations 4. Radiative losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Bremsstrahlung . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Direct e+ e− pair production . . . . . 4.3. Photonuclear interactions . . . . . . 4.4. Comparison with other works on muon 4.5. Muon critical energy . . . . . . . . 4.6. Fluctuations in radiative energy loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . radiative losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 7 7 9 9 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 19 22 22 23 30 32 37

5. Tabulated data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. Stopping power and density-effect parameters for compounds and mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B. Direct pair production from screened nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LBNL-44742

2

Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001

D. E. GROOM, N. V. MOKHOV, and S. STRIGANOV

Muon Stopping Power and Range

1. Introduction
The mean stopping power for high-energy muons (or other heavy charged particles 1 ) in a material can be described by [1] −dE/dx = a (E) + b (E) E , (1) where E is the total energy, a(E) is the electronic stopping power, and b(E) is due to radiative processes—bremsstrahlung, pair production, and photonuclear interactions: b ≡ bbrems + bpair + bnucl (2)

The notation is convenient because a(E) and b(E) are slowly varying functions of E at the high energies where radiative contributions are important. b(E)E is less than 1% of a(E) for E < ∼ 100 GeV for most materials. The “continuous-slowing-down-approximation” (CSDA) range is obtained from the integral
E

R (E) =
E0

[a (E ) + b (E ) E ]

−1

dE

(3)

where E0 is sufficiently small that the result is insensitive to its exact value. At very high energies, where a and b are (essentially) constant, R (E) ≈ (1/b) ln (1 + E/Eµc ) , (4)

where Eµc = a/b is the muon critical energy. The muon critical energy can be defined more precisely as the energy at which electronic losses and radiative losses are equal, in analogy to one of the ways of defining the critical energy for electrons. It is obtained by finding E µc such that a (Eµc ) = Eµc b (Eµc ) . (5)

The CSDA range is of limited usefulness, particularly at higher energies, because of the effect of fluctuations. (Fluctuations in radiative losses are discussed briefly in Section 4.6.) For example, the cosmic ray muon intensity falls very rapidly with energy, so that the flux observed deep underground is quite different from that to be expected from Eq. (3). We nonetheless calculate the CSDA range given by Eq. (3) as an indicator of actual muon range. The important and well-studied subjects of stopping power fluctuations and range straggling in electronic energy loss [2,3] are not treated, even though they are much more serious for muons than for heavier particles: The fractional range straggling ( variance(range)/range) scales as 1/M for particles with the same velocity, and hence is three times larger for a 100 MeV muon than for a 900 MeV proton. In copper the fractional straggling varies from 4% at 10 MeV, through a minimum of 2.8% at 300 MeV, then rising through 5.7% at 10 GeV. Above ∼ 100 GeV straggling due to fluctuations in bremsstrahlung losses begins to dominate. Multiple scattering is also neglected, but with more justification. One measure of multiple scattering is provided by the “detour factor” [3], the ratio of the average penetration depth to the average path length for a stopping particle. The detour factor is 0.98 in the worst case (uranium at our lowest energy). This ratio increases rapidly toward unity as the energy is increased or if the atomic weight of the absorber is decreased.
1 The radiative loss formulae given in this paper apply only to a spin-1/2 pointlike heavy particles, where “heavy” means “much more massive than an electron.” Insofar as we know, the solution for spin-0 particles has never been published.

LBNL-44742

3

Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001

2. Symbol α M Mµ E T p me c2 re NA ze Z A K/A I δ h ωp ¯ Ne wj nj Eµc ν ε Definition Units or Value Fine structure constant e2 /4π 0 hc ¯ 1/137. the energy transfer in a single interaction It is our intention to make this report sufficiently self-contained that the interested user can replicate our calculations. MOKHOV. [5] are more dependable than those calculated via their general algorithm [6]. so that improvements in the mean excitation energy have no effect on the stopping power. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. Constants are from CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 1998 [7]. July 2001 . V. as will be discussed in Section 3. and Voss [4] have become the de facto world standard. The necessary constants for electronic loss calculations and tables of b(E) for elements. Vol. for the mean radiative loss calculations.D. We therefore continue to use sometimes-obsolete LBNL-44742 4 Tables of muon energy loss from a 1985 CERN internal report by Lohmann.035 999 76(50) Incident particle mass MeV/c2 Muon mass 105. are also available as ASCII files at http://pdg.022 141 99(47) × 10 23 mol−1 Avogadro’s number Charge of incident particle Atomic number of medium Atomic mass of medium g mol−1 (Occasionally: atomic mass number) dimensionless 2 4πNA re me c2 /A 0. 2. and S. 4 the convention c = 1 is used. Later theoretical work enables us to improve the calculations for low-Z elements (2 ≤ Z ≤ 10) and to make minor improvements elsewhere.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties. But. The electronic √ charge e and the kinematic variables β = v/c and γ = 1/ 1 − β 2 have their usual definitions. even though this results in our giving often-tedious detail. E. 76. In Sect. The changes are sometimes as great as 10%.817 940 285(31) fm 6. the density effect has “replaced” ∼ the mean excitation energy by the plasma energy. No.lbl.658 356 8(52) MeV/c2 2 Incident particle energy γM c MeV 2 Kinetic energy (γ − 1)M c MeV Momentum γβM c MeV/c Electron mass × c2 0. These tables are more extensive than the subset of data actually presented in this paper. Kopp. N. better values for mean excitation energies are now available for a variety of materials. Over much of our energy region of interest (for βγ > 1000) however. There is one serious dilemma: We believe that the density effect corrections via the careful parameterizations of Sternheimer et al. GROOM.816 ρ Z/A eV for ρ in g cm−3 Plasma energy 4πNe re me c2 /α Electron density Fraction by weight of the jth element in a compound or mixture ( wi = 1) number of the jth kind of atoms in a compound or mixture Muon critical energy GeV Fractional energy transfer in an incident particle interaction νE.307 075 MeV g−1 cm2 for A = 1 g mol−1 Mean excitation energy eV (Nota bene! ) Density effect correction to electronic energy loss 3 28. Parenthetical numbers after the values give the 1-standard deviation uncertainties in the last digits. This careful work serves as the benchmark for the present effort. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 1: Definitions of most of the variables used in this report.510 998 902(21) MeV Classical electron radius e2 /4π 0 me c2 2.

1. which Andersen and Ziegler have used to construct phenomenological fits bridging the regions in which there is adequate theoretical understanding [12]. Overview The behavior of stopping power (= −dE/dx ) in copper over twelve decades of muon kinetic energy is shown by the solid curves in Fig. Following the work of Fermi and Teller [9]. the muon velocity is small compared with that of the valence electrons in the absorber. 2. There is. Data below the breaks in the curves are from ICRU 49 [3]. The curve falls to a broad minimum whose position for solid absorbers decreases from βγ = 3.0 as Z goes from 7 to 100. Approximate boundaries between regions described by different theories or phenomenologies are indicated by the shaded vertical bands. α < β < 0. There is no satisfactory theory for the intermediate region. to which are added a number of corrections for the low-energy region and to account for the polarization of the medium at high energies.5 to 3.2. How this affects our results will be discussed in Section 3. V.D. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range excitation values. [5] are easily accommodated if the changes are small. increases nearly linearly with energy above 1 TeV or so. 76. 2. 1) is less marked when the polarization effects are taken into account (dash-dotted curve). while data above the breaks are from our present calculations.01 nonionizing energy losses via nuclear recoil become increasingly significant [3]. The stopping power is found to be proportional to the projectile velocity. The mean electronic loss at the minimum value as a function of Z is shown in Fig. For example. this is done in several cases. LBNL-44742 5 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. radiative losses in copper dominate above Eµc = 315 GeV. MOKHOV. such as form factor corrections [15]. On the other hand. below β ≈ 0. The rise in Fig. Vol. and S. GROOM. in particular for starting range integrals. For β < α.5) and other effects. While our main interest is at higher energies. and hence the entire energy loss rate. No. Above β ≈ 0. N. 1) one may make the opposite approximation.05 or 0. neglecting electronic motion within atoms. however. E. tables are also given for the liquid state. 1. 2.1 (but see Ref. Electronic (ionization + excitation) losses in the high-velocity region are well described by Bethe’s theory based on a first-order Born approximation [13]. 1 with further increases of the projectile energy (labeled “without δ” in Fig. Lindhard and collaborators have constructed a successful semi-phenomenological model to describe ionizing energy losses in this regime. 11). This region is marked by the dashed curve with the dotted extension in Fig. Tables of b(E) are given for the same materials. finally dominating energy loss at very low energies. This is the interval between the grey bands shown in Fig. 1. Electronic losses at very high energies are somewhat modified by bremsstrahlung from the atomic electrons [14] (see Section 3. We present tables of stopping power and mean range for muons from kinetic energy T = 10 MeV to 100 TeV for most elements and a variety compounds and mixtures. corrections to the densities used by Sternheimer et al. These are of decreased importance because radiative energy losses begin to be significant above a few hundreds of GeV for even intermediate-Z absorbers. approximating the electronic structure of solids by a Fermi electron gas distribution [10]. The symbols and constants used in this report are explained in Table 1. a rich experimental literature. The radiative contribution. some understanding of the behavior at lower energies is useful.001–0. In the case of elemental gases. July 2001 .1 (the second grey band in Fig. below the first grey band in Fig. 1. However.

N. GROOM.1 0. The short dotted lines labeled “µ− ” illustrate the “Barkas effect” [8]. and S. July 2001 .5 MeV are scaled by the appropriate mass ratios from the π − and p tables in ICRU 49 [3]. V. 12 orders of magnitude range) and as a function of momentum p = M βcγ (bottom figure. “Nuclear losses” indicates non-ionizing nuclear recoil energy losses.1 Without δ 1 10 [keV] 100 1 10 [MeV] 100 1 10 [GeV] 100 1 10 [TeV] 100 Muon kinetic energy T Stopping power [MeV cm2/g] 100 LindhardScharff µ− AndersenZiegler Bethe-Bloch Radiative 10 Eµc Radiative Minimum effects ionization reach 1% Radiative losses Nuclear losses 1 0. 76.001 0. 9 orders of magnitude). STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range µ+ on Cu Stopping power [MeV cm2/g] 100 LindhardScharff µ− AndersenZiegler Bethe-Bloch Radiative effects reach 1% Minimum ionization Radiative 10 Eµc Radiative losses Nuclear losses 1 0.01 0. Data below the break at T ≈ 0. Vertical bands indicate boundaries between different theoretical approximations or dominant physical processes. No. and data at higher energies are from the present calculations.D. MOKHOV. E. Vol. LBNL-44742 6 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. Solid curves indicate the total stopping power. 2.1 1 100 10 1 Without δ βγ 100 1000 10 4 10 5 10 6 1 10 [MeV/c] 10 100 [GeV/c] Muon momentum p 1 10 [TeV/c] 100 Figure 1: Stopping power (= −dE/dx ) for positive muons in copper as a function of kinetic energy T (top figure. which are negligible here.

a(E).10 H2 liquid: 3.0 0. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 2. although it is limited to protons and alpha particles (except for a short π − table) and to proton energies less than 10 GeV. The kinetic energy of the scattered electron is Q.5 Solids Gases 1. LBNL-44742 7 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. Fano [19].0 2. we leave open the possibilities that the charge is ze and that the particle might be something other than a muon. and radiative losses. so the particle loses a small amount of energy in each scattering.64 log10(Z) 1. The scattered electrons have kinetic energies up to some cutoff Q1 . For the moment. E. 76. For this region.1 eV [17].1 GeV for muons. and S. 1.01–0. The straight line is fitted for Z ≥ 6. No. In his derivation of the stopping power. 16–24].97 2. Bethe approximated the generalized oscillator strength by the dipole oscillator strength f (ε) which is the generalized oscillator 2 Variously called S. and Bichsel [24]. In this energy region nuclear recoil contributes negligibly to energy loss. July 2001 . Vol. and radiative losses can be added as an independent contribution. V. MOKHOV. typically 0. Here the reciprocal of the 3-momentum transfer (roughly an impact parameter) is large compared with atomic dimensions. Major contributions The electronic stopping power2 is calculated by summing the contributions of all possible inelastic scatterings. following summarizes the detailed discussions by Rossi [17]. 3. These are normally from lower to higher (bound or unbound) electronic energy states.1. Low-Q region. which typically become important above tens of GeV.5 〈– dE/dx〉min (MeV g –1cm2) H2 gas: 4. GROOM.5 H 1 He 2 Li Be B C NO Ne 5 10 Fe 20 Sn 50 100 Z Figure 2: Minimum ionization as a function of Z. Bethe [25] introduced the concept of “generalized The oscillator strength” which is closely related to the inelastic-scattering form-factor [20]. ICRU 49 is particularly useful.35 – 0.D. 3. N. 2. We briefly review the subject here in order to emphasize high-energy behavior. corresponding to E < 1. Electronic energy losses of high-energy heavy particles The physics formulae needed to describe the average electronic energy losses of a high-energy (β αZ) massive (= electron) charged particle as it passes through matter have been reviewed elsewhere [3. or the electronic part of the total mean energy loss rate −dE/dx .

Eq.4. 3. given by Qmax = 2me c2 β 2 γ 2 2 .8 GeV.4). (7) is more closely related to Rossi’s form (see his Eqns. Accordingly. particularly at high energies where the transverse extension of the incident particle’s electric field becomes substantial. He derived the following contribution to S: K Z 1 Q1 Slow = z 2 ln 2 (6) + ln γ 2 − β 2 2 A β2 I /2me β 2 c2 Here ln I = f (ε) ln ε dε. In other words. If Qupper is restricted to some maximum value. MOKHOV. Intermediate. 1 + 2γme /M + (me /M ) (8) Qupper is normally equal to Qmax (as will be the case after the conclusion of this section). (7) is useful in considering restricted energy loss. The correction is usually made by subtracting a density-effect term δ. July 2001 . A very small projectile mass dependence of the electronic stopping power is introduced by Qmax . At higher energies Q can be equated to the energy given to the electron. Note that Q max → E at very high energies. the increase of Shigh with energy is associated with the production of high-energy recoil electrons. Polarization of the medium can seriously reduce this contribution. The low-Q region is associated with large impact parameters and hence with long distances.6 and 2. and S. inside the square brackets of Eq. or δ-rays. and the next two terms from transverse excitations. 2. LBNL-44742 8 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. which otherwise depends only on projectile velocity. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range strength f (ε. 2. and cannot exceed Qmax . E. The more general form given in Eq. 0.g. but is in error by a factor of two for a muon with T = 10. N. e. 2. (6). Vol. V. (7) Here Qmax is the kinematic maximum possible electron recoil kinetic energy. When the integration of the energy-weighted cross sections is carried out from Q 1 to some upper limit Qupper. GROOM.and high-Q regions. This important correction is discussed in Sect. At high energies (such that Qupper/Qmax 1) the first term in the square brackets dominates.5. then S high is essentially constant for Qmax > Qupper . q) for zero momentum transfer q (ε is the energy loss in a single collision). 76. which is of relevance in considering the energy actually deposited in a thin absorber. The denominator I 2 /2me β 2 c2 in the first (logarithmic) term is the effective lower cutoff on the integral over dQ/Q. one obtains Shigh = K 2Z 1 Qupper Qupper z − β2 ln 2 2 Aβ Q1 Qmax . If Qupper = Qmax the high-Q region stopping power rises with energy as ln Qmax . f (ε) is closely related to the optical absorption coefficient. In an intermediate region atomic excitation energies are not necessarily small compared with Q. No. but transverse excitations can be neglected. This low-energy approximation is made in many papers of the Bevatron era. neglecting its binding energy.3.D. This term comes from “longitudinal excitations” (the ordinary Coulomb potential). In Fano’s discussion the low-energy approximation Q max ≈ 2me c2 β 2 γ 2 = 2me p2 /M 2 is implicit.5 MeV.

there was a residual ≈ 0. so that an additional term −C/Z = − Cj /Z appears in the square brackets of Eq. The figure also shows Bichsel’s more recent determination of I for selected heavy elements [29]. and S. It falls rapidly with increasing energy. the 5% errors are shown. 76.3. The density-effect correction essentially replaces I by the plasma frequency hωp for p/M > 1000. so the stopping power is completely insensitive to I for T > 100 GeV. 2. 26. We therefore feel justified in using the older data. (6) was obtained by Bethe [25] with the approximation that the velocities of atomic electrons are small compared with that of the projectile. To investigate the consequences of errors or changes in the mean excitation energies. As can be seen. July 2001 . Vol. we have used the simple but long-obsolete analytic LBNL-44742 9 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. the mean excitation energy for liquid water has been more recently determined to be 79. (6). This reference also gives mean excitation energies for a variety of biological materials of interest here.2.05 eV [31]. We are strongly motivated to use the ICRU 37 mean excitation energies because of the availability of density effect parameters based on these values [5]. Other ways to calculate the shell correction are discussed in Ref. Bichsel has observed that this would be equivalent to lowering the mean excitation energy values for high-Z materials by as much as 10%. The error estimates are from Table 2 in Ref. These values (scaled by 1/Z) are shown in Fig. Unfortunately.0 eV. Mean excitation energy “The determination of the mean excitation energy is the principal non-trivial task in the evaluation of the Bethe stopping-power formula” [26].7 ± 0. for which dependable density-effect parameters are available.4% at high energies. E. GROOM. 75. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 3. No. ¯ ∼ ∼ or for the lower half of our stopping power tables. (12)). In addition. and alpha particles and on oscillator-strength distributions and dielectric-response functions were given in ICRU 37 [27]. and 3% in uranium.5%). In the Tµ = 10–100 MeV region. deuterons.6%–1. The change from the ICRU 37 values is less than 7% in all of the 19 cases except for samarium (7.4% over this energy range. and to compare our results with the proton stopping power and range-energy tables in ICRU 49 [3]. the stopping power correction is 0. These were retained in ICRU 49 [3]. He estimates uncertainties from 1. N. MOKHOV. More precisely. Leung has described further corrections to stopping power theory due to relativistic effects of the target electrons [32]. the algorithms are not easy for the non-expert to implement. Low-energy corrections The distant-collision contribution to the stopping power given by Eq. I/Z 10 ± 1 eV for elements heavier than sulphur. To investigate its importance. bismuth (9. we ran a version of our code in which I was increased by 10% and no other changes were made. For lead it decreased by 2. significantly higher than the ICRU 37 value. Such effects could increase the stopping power by as much as 2% for high-Z targets.3%) and thorium (9. in particular C (see Eq. Bethe’s approximation was to replace the generalized oscillator strength by the dipole oscillator strength f (ε) in obtaining this result. 3. and they are used in the EGS4 [28] electron/photon transport code. This leads to correction terms [16] which are different for each atomic shell. Since we did not modify the density-effect parameters. The “shell correction” for the jth shell is represented by −2Cj /Z. V.5% to 5%. For example. but these also become increasingly insignificant as the energy increases. 3. The range integral always has contributions from lower-energy parts.5%). The shell correction is not important at the energies of interest in this report. Estimates based on experimental stopping-power measurements for protons.D. In addition. the stopping power increased by somewhat over 1% for carbon and iron. yet in many cases the more recent values are superior and should be used. tungsten (7.3% for a 10 MeV muon in iron. Recommended values have varied substantially with time. where a useful comparison with other results is given. 3. But even at intermediate energies it plays a role in “starting” the range integral.5%).

1.858019η −2 − 0.422377η −2 + 0. It is illustrated by the µ− stopping-power segment shown in Fig. the interpolated values are simply joined. the black point at 19. (9) where η = βγ and I is in eV. Those based on experimental measurements are shown by symbols with error flags. The grey point is for liquid H2 . The open circles show more modern determinations by Bichsel [29]. MOKHOV. This was attributed to a departure from first-order Born theory [33].D. July 2001 .00157955η −6 × 10−9 I 3 . They are not significant at the energies of concern in this report. Vol. N. This form is reasonably good only for η > 0. The effect has been measured for a number of negative/positive particle pairs. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 22 20 18 Iadj/Z (eV) 16 14 12 10 8 ICRU 37 (1984) (interpolated values are not marked with points) Barkas & Berger 1964 Bichsel 1992 0 10 20 30 40 50 Z 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 3: Mean excitation energies (divided by Z) as adopted in ICRU 37 [27] (filled points). These corrections are discussed in detail in ICRU 49. The dotted curve is from the approximate formula of Barkas [30]. E. and are mentioned here for completeness. To obtain Bloch’s result. 2.89 MeV for a muon). approximation for the shell correction introduced by Barkas [30]: 3 The accuracy of our results is addressed in Section 3. and is normally included by adding a term zL 1 (β) to the stopping-power formula. C = 0. Bethe’s stopping power theory is based on a first-order Born approximation.7. a term z 2 L2 (β) is added if results accurate at low energies are desired.9 MeV for a proton. 0.1667989η −4 + 0. No.2 is for H2 gas. In early Bevatron experiments Barkas et al. most recently for antiprotons/protons at the CERN LEAR facility [34]. LBNL-44742 10 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. and S.13 (T = 7. 76.0304043η −4 − 0. GROOM. V.00038106η −6 × 10−6 I 2 + 3. [8] found that negative pions had a somewhat greater range than positive pions with the same (small) initial energy. 3 Explicitly.

For elements. and above some high energy (see x1 below) it is well described by the asymptotic form given in Eq. We use the tables given in Ref. (15). At some low energy (related to x0 below) the density effect is insignificant. and although the parameters look different the resulting δ is not sensibly different. h (12) The other parameters (a.4. and Berger. N. and 28. These will be corrected. (10) is to replace I with hωp and to eliminate the explicit β 2 γ 2 dependence in the first (log) ¯ term in the square brackets. the density-effect parameter tables are extended to nearly 300 elements. and no great error is engendered by employing the user-friendly parameterized forms. and an approximately equal number of new materials added. At very high energies. compounds. x < x0 (nonconductors).D. 37). (11) where x = log 10 (p/M ) = log 10 βγ. cellulose nitrate. 5. The remaining rise of the electronic stopping power comes from Q max . δ. so that C = 2 ln (I/¯ ωp ) + 1 . 36. 5 Given the power of modern computers. so that the distant-collision part of dE/dx (Eq. the effect of ¯ Eq. (A. see Table IV in Ref. The chemical composition of the materials is given in Ref. see Refs. 1. which can be different for condensed and gas states of the same substance and even depends upon density. No. δ/2 → ln (¯ ωp /I) + ln βγ − 1/2 . The approach is to subtract a density-effect correction. Note that C is the negative of the C used in earlier publications.4 The agreement with more detailed calculations or results obtained with other parameter sets is usually at the 0. (15). Conductors require special treatment at the low-energy end. real media become polarized. (10). in the case of some polymers with variable density. the PEGS4 data [28] use the values from Ref. (6)) increases as ln βγ. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 3. and 6. x1 .5% level [37]. 4 Slightly incorrect compositions (and therefore density effect parameters) are given for lanthanum oxysulfide (corrected in a footnote in Ref. cellulose acetate. In a series of papers by Sternheimer. MOKHOV. Seltzer. x < x0 (conductors) . The effect of the density correction is shown in Fig. GROOM. 5 The densities used in these tables are occasionally in error. x0 ≤ x < x 1 . However. Sternheimer has proposed the parameterization [35] δ = 2 (ln 10) x − C + a (x1 − x) 0   δ0 102(x−x0 )   2 (ln 10) x − C   k if if if if x ≥ x1 . and S. July 2001 . This “density effect” has been extensively treated over the years. k. out of the usual range. E. h (10) where hωp is the plasma energy defined in Table 1. x0 . and mixtures. (10). (11) with the limit of Eq. 76. As can be seen from Eq. resulting in the δ/2 term in Eq. or. given by Eq. In our case radiative effects dominate over most of the relevant energy range. Vol. C is obtained by equating the high-energy case of Eq. these are marked by footnotes in the tables in Section 5. in a forthcoming publication [39]. 2. polypropylene. experts now calculate the density effect from first principles rather than use these formulae [39]. and perhaps other materials. A variety of different parameter sets are available. One problem along the way is knowing the mean excitation energy. Density effect As the particle energy increases its electric field flattens and extends. In some cases these result from a different fitting procedure having been used with the same model. and δ0 ) are adjusted to give a best fit to the results of detailed numerical calculations for a logarithmically spaced grid of energy values. (8). 5 for most of the present calculations.8) [6] to adjust the parameters. 26. V. In this and other cases we use Eq. LBNL-44742 11 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. limiting this extension and effectively truncating part of this logarithmic rise. however. and references therein. 38. from the distant-collision contribution.

and Petrukhin [14]. The former diagrams result in losses nearly proportional to E. Other high-energy corrections Bremsstrahlung from atomic electrons in the case of incident muons was considered in a 1997 paper by Kelner. −dE/dx was low by 2. amounting to 2% of the electronic loss at 100 GeV and 4% at 1 TeV. 3. at worst. (1/4)(Q max /E)2 . and other hadrons. Berger. Calculation of parameters for a cryogenic liquid using the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm can be checked for hydrogen and water. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range There remains the problem of obtaining the density-effect parameters if they have not been tabulated for the material of interest. and emission by the electron before and after photon exchange. When the algorithm was used to calculate parameters for water using the excitation energy for steam. 76. while the range was high by 1. (7) if the incident particle is a muon (point-like and spin 1/2) [17]. Although this contribution is well within uncertainties in the total stopping power. both the adjustment of the parameters for a different density and the Sternheimer–Peierls algorithm can be checked by using those cases in the tables where parameters are given for different densities of the same material. GROOM. No.75% at 670 GeV. (19). July 2001 . When the “compact carbon” parameters are adjusted to the two other tabulated carbon densities. The algorithm proposed by Sternheimer and Peierls [6] is discussed in Appendix A. and S. reaching 90% of that value at 200 GeV in most materials. Only a slight improvement was obtained by using the excitation energy given for water. observe. N. Deviations were smaller elsewhere. (A. in the case of incident pions. its inclusion avoids a systematic bias. An additional spin-correction term.5.D. and that the parameters calculated for cryogenic liquids (except hydrogen) using the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm could produce stopping power errors of slightly over 1% at minimum ionization. To some degree. the maximum 4-momentum transfer to the electron can exceed 1 GeV/c. We conclude that the stopping power results in this report obtained with parameters scaled to different densities are accurate to within the overall 0.2%. It is included in our calculations.5% agreement level estimated by Seltzer and Berger [37]. protons. using the excitation energy for the liquid. and are described by Eq. and produce an additional term in the stopping power. and less elsewhere. V. the result was 1% higher at minimum ionization than that obtained directly with the water parameters. 2. and Seltzer [5]. Kokoulin. One might expect this “soft” LBNL-44742 12 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.038 (Z/A) MeV g −1 cm2 . Its contribution to the stopping power asymptotically approaches 0. so that. The latter are properly part of electronic losses. and Seltzer [5] tabulate parameters for both hydrogen gas and liquid hydrogen under bubble chamber conditions. This method was used to calculate parameters for liquid hydrogen at bubble chamber density (0. so we have made calculations in both directions via the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm and by scaling densities via Eq. this loss is given by: ∆ 1 2Qmax KZ 2E 2Qmax dE − ln = α ln ln2 2 2 dx 4π A Mµ c 3 me c me c2 (13) As Kelner et al. cross sections are modified by the extended charge distributions of the projectiles.8). but is also of interest when dealing with a compound or mixture not tabulated by Sternheimer.5%. Vol. at minimum ionization.060 g/cm 3 ). Berger. At energies above a few hundred GeV. MOKHOV. the difference in stopping power and range with those obtained directly is less than 0. E. Sternheimer. this addition is important at high energies. In iron its fractional contribution reaches a maximum of 0. Hydrogen is always a worst case. is included in the square brackets Eq. To leading powers in logarithms.1%. This issue is of particular importance here in the case of cryogenic liquids such as N2 . There are four lowest-order diagrams: Photon emission by the muon before and after photon exchange with the electron.

(9) has been used. we have made comparisons with this correction “turned off. 2. 3. Bethe-Bloch equation We summarize this discussion with the Bethe-Bloch equation for muons in the form used in this paper: − dE dx =K electronic dE δ 1 Q2 Z 1 1 2me c2 β 2 γ 2 Qmax max ln − β2 − + 2 +∆ 2 2 Aβ 2 I 2 8 (γM c2 ) dx (15) The final term. E. We neglect this correction. Jackson [15]. which is ±0. D. Our muon tables start at T = 10 MeV. who concluded that corrections to dE/dx become important only at energies where radiative losses dominate. This problem has been investigated by J. is given by Eq. We make the shell correction only for elements. hence.D. our results could be in error by nearly 3%. iron. our results disagree LBNL-44742 13 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. Since they do not consider the contributions of bremsstrahlung from atomic electrons (Eq. V. but is worse at high atomic number and low energy. In general the agreement is regarded as adequate. ICRU 49 concludes that the “differences between tabulated and experimental stopping powers are mostly smaller than 1% and hardly ever greater than 2%. 76. R/M is a function of T /M (or E/M .5%. Vol. so that only 100 MeV and above is relevant in the proton comparisons. We conclude that in a worst-case scenario. and of the CSDA range comparisons in Table 3. Similarly. produces range differences of a few parts per thousand between positive and negative muons near minimum ionization.9%. for bremsstrahlung from atomic electrons. 20) persists at high energies. Comparison with other ionizing energy loss calculations Comparisons with the ICRU 49 proton tables have been made by running our code with the proton mass. and under these conditions somewhat overcorrects. July 2001 .” and in the case of compounds and mixtures “the uncertainties are approximately three times as large as in the case of elements” [3]. a term should be added to the close-collision part of Eq. Without the shell correction the stopping power for this case is high by 1. corresponding to a proton energy of about 100 MeV.6. The simple shell correction given by Eq.” Under these conditions. is insensitive to the rare hard collisions.00176 MeV g −1 cm2 for z = ±1. since its average. dominated by losses due to many soft collisions. In any case the agreement improves rapidly with increasing energy. This means that a value of the stopping power for a particle with mass M1 and kinetic energy T1 is the same as the stopping power for a particle with mass M2 at T2 = (M2 /M1 )T1 . this expression depends only on the projectile velocity. N. or p/M ). GROOM. Except for the very small projectile mass dependence introduced by Q max . STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range cutoff to Qmax to reduce the electronic stopping power. For uranium the stopping power at 100 MeV is low by 0.7. PuCl 4 (which we do not tabulate) at 10 MeV. MOKHOV. At lower energies the stopping power is almost unchanged. Jackson and McCarthy [40] have pointed out that the Barkas correction calculated by Fermi (but see their Ref. Lohmann et al. No. (15): Z πα (14) Kz 3 A 2β This correction. Z/A = 1/2 and β = 1. (13)). For lower-Z materials the agreement is consistent with ICRU 49. 3. and uranium.7% and the range low by 2. (13). At higher energies sign-indifferent radiative effects dominate. A summary of the stopping power comparisons is given in Table 2. [4] list muon electronic losses separately for hydrogen. For muons the spin correction replaces this form-factor correction.8% and the range high by 1. and S.

575 1.84 Iron (Z = 26) This calculation 28. Radiative losses The radiative contribution to muon stopping power is conveniently written as b(E)E [1].883 1.126 by at most 2 in the 4th decimal place.79 17.552 3.29 15. V.210 2. GROOM.56 Tin (Z = 50) This calculation 22.290 7.94 ICRU 49 45.388 3.288 1.514 6.574 1. direct pair production. In this section we specialize to M = M µ .242 2.186 10 GeV 4. presumably from different rounding of the density-effect parameters.140 1.144 1.942 1.52 ICRU 49 17.79 Bichsel 1992 Uranium (Z = 92) This calculation 16.539 4.67 3 100 MeV 15.7 ICRU 49 101.532 3. and photonuclear interactions: b ≡ bbrems + bpair + bnucl (2) Here we describe the calculation of these contributions.243 1.592 3.9 Graphite (Z = 6. 10 MeV Hydrogen gas (Z = 1) This calculation 101.497 1.54 ICRU 49 28. To a very rough approximation.86 Liquid water This calculation 45. the bremsstrahlung contribution scales as 1/M 2 .02 Lead (Z = 82) This calculation 17.043 4.603 1. it is usually written as a sum of contributions from bremsstrahlung.946 1. As indicated earlier.72 ICRU 49 40. 76. although to the best of our knowledge radiative losses by spin-0 particles has not been treated.426 1.90 Bichsel 1992 16. Note that the convention c = 1 is used in all the formulae in this section. The results below probably apply fairly well to charged pion radiative energy losses.211 2. E.349 1. 4.165 3.881 1.291 1.68 ICRU 49 16. ρ = 1.177 4. July 2001 .30 6. although the results apply to any massive spin-1/2 pointlike particle.520 5.132 2. and S.351 1. and the pair-production part as 1/M .539 1.411 3.045 5. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 2: Comparison of stopping power calculations for protons (in MeV g −1 cm2 ) with those of ICRU 49 [3] and Bichsel 1992 [29].450 7.601 1. 2.189 1. where b(E) is a slowly-varying function of energy which is asymptotically constant. Vol. MOKHOV.289 1 GeV 4.423 1. No. N.26 ICRU 49 22. LBNL-44742 14 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.7 g/cm ) This calculation 40.D.496 4.

STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 3: Comparison of CSDA range calculations for protons (in g cm −2 ) with those of ICRU 49.D. All of the results mentioned above were derived in the Born approximation. 76. V.2764 Lead This calculation 0. As a result. MOKHOV.0534 0. Vol.0 459.95 16.90 13.633 8.1377 Iron (Z = 26) This calculation 0.2064 Tin (Z = 50) This calculation 0. 8120.2 646.79 16. 5337.3718 Liquid water This calculation 0. As a consequence.1230 4. 2254. A simple approximation for medium and heavy nuclei (Z > 10) was derived. Their new calculations were in good agreement with the old ones by Petrukhin and Shestakov for medium and heavy nuclei.3315 ICRU 49 0.7 367.7 645. GROOM.4 325.627 11. It was recently shown [45] that the non-Born corrections in the region of low and high momentum transfers have the same order of magnitude but opposite signs.1.24 7. 7272. 2.7 621. Graphite (Z = 6. and Voss [4] also used this approximation.2 459. 4700. 8432. No. ρ = 1.4 10 GeV 2254.3528 Uranium This calculation 0.3462 ICRU 49 0. e.0535 3 100 MeV 3. and S. pointing out that Ref. but for Z < 10 they set the nuclear screening correction equal to zero. which was first done consistently by Petrukhin and Shestakov [42].2013 ICRU 49 0. 5333..1361 ICRU 49 0. Ref.636 3.56 17. An independent analysis was performed by the Bugaev group (see. they nearly compensate each other.9 620.37 13. July 2001 .g. 7291. it is necessary to take into account nuclear screening.2623 ICRU 49 0. N. 42 overestimates the nuclear screening correction by about 10%. Kopp.1201 ICRU 49 0. 6389.6 540. Kelner et al.36 11. 45).8 325. The results of Petrukhin and Shestakov and the Bugaev group for bremsstrahlung on screened nuclei agree to within a few percent.7 158. LBNL-44742 15 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. but in addition they proposed an approximation for light nuclei. [44] later observed that the CCFR conclusion probably resulted from an incorrect treatment of the BetheHeitler formula. The CCFR collaboration [43] revised the Petrukhin and Shestakov [42] results. In the case of muons.9 541.634 8. 8456. E.52 17.7 g/cm ) This calculation 0. Bremsstrahlung The cross section for electron bremsstrahlung was obtained by Bethe and Heitler [41]. 4703. 6383. Lohmann. 8143.718 1 GeV 158. their bremsstrahlung contribution for low-Z nuclei is overestimated by about 10%.4 367. 10 MeV Hydrogen gas This calculation ICRU 49 0.710 7.

GROOM. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range The differential cross section for muon bremsstrahlung from a (screened) nucleus as given in Ref. Z 2 in Eq. (21) below. as in Eq. δ = M µ ν/2E(1 − ν). Although pair production dominates the radiative contributions to the stopping power. where B = 446. Based on this work. and δ = M 2 ν/2E(1 − ν). Since there is not yet a Hartree-Fock result for screening in the case of bremsstrahlung from atomic electrons.. e = 2. is given by [14]: dσ dν In this case Φin (δ) = ln = αZ 2 brems. and Φ (δ) = ln BMµ Z −1/3 /me √ 1 + δ e BZ −1/3 /me − ∆n (δ) .27 .D. 44 is used for the present paper: dσ dν = α 2Z brems. E. 76. see Ref.. Atomic screening was later taken into account by Kelner and Kotov [48]. A much better approximation for the contribution from electrons.2. Vol. 4. we prefer to use the form factors based on the Thomas-Fermi potential throughout. 2. as above. (18) The Thomas-Fermi potential for atomic electrons is assumed. MOKHOV. (16) is usually replaced with Z(Z + 1) (e. Direct e+ e− pair production The cross section for direct e+ e− pair production in a Coulomb field was first calculated by Racah [47]. N. The average energy loss −dE/dx due to bremsstrahlung is calculated by integrating the sum of these cross sections. A more precise calculation of the radiation logarithm using the Hartree-Fock model is described in Ref. and the nuclear screening correction ∆ n is given by ∆n = ln D √n 1 + δ (Dn e − 2) /Mµ . With their approach. taking into account electronic binding and recoil. No. 4). (20) where B = 1429 for all elements but hydrogen. see Ref. the average energy loss is obtained through a three-fold numerical integration. bremsstrahlung dominates at high ν. To account for bremsstrahlung losses on atomic electrons. one obtains a double differential cross section for e + e− production. . 4.54A0.7181 . With the simple parameterization of the screening functions proposed by Kokoulin and Petrukhin [49]. (17) 2 where Dn = 1. the agreement is better at low energies. This formula is widely used in muon transport calculations (for example. and S. V. and the results agree with the Thomas-Fermi results within about 1% at high energies (total screening).4 for hydrogen). 4). 46. nucl me re Mµ 2 4 4 Φ (δ) − ν + ν2 3 3 ν (16) Here ν is the fraction of the muon’s energy transferred to the photon. . elec me re Mµ 2 4 4 Φin (δ) − ν + ν2 3 3 ν me √ δ BZ −2/3 e (19) Mµ /δ √ Mµ δ/m2 + e e − ln 1 + . July 2001 .7 (B = 202. The cross section for bremsstrahlung as a function of fractional energy transfer ν is shown in Fig. B = 182.g. a (rather complicated) analytic form for the energy spectrum of pairs created in screened muon-nucleus collisions was LBNL-44742 16 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.

4 × 10−5 for hydrogen and g = 1.073 ln = E dx pair. This cross section gives results 1 2 consistent with other calculations to within 30% [4]. This formula for the electronic contribution to pair production energy loss by muons is valid to within 5% of the more laborious numerical result for E > 5 GeV. Photonuclear interactions Several approaches have been developed to calculate the muon photonuclear cross section. t = µ . STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range derived by Nikishov [50]. Other values are given by M 2ν2 2 2 3 x2 ε . 4. κ = 1 − + 2 .D. 4. A more precise approach has recently been developed by Kelner [51]. The cross section for photonuclear interactions as a function of fractional energy transfer ν is shown in Fig.95 × 10−5 for other materials. elec A 1 + g Z 2/3 E/Mµ Here g = 4. 76. The explicit formula is given in Appendix B. GROOM. and G (x) = 3 − 1 + e−x (1 + x) . E. (24) ν= E 1−ν ν ν x 2 x = 0..75 G (x) 2 1 + 0.647 ln 2 (0. The cross section for direct pair production as a function of fractional energy transfer ν is shown in Fig.0213 ε) (25) This approximation is good enough only for muon energy loss ε > 5 GeV.8 GeV2 .3. The total cross section σγN (ε) for the photon-nucleon interaction appears as a normalization parameter in Ref. and S. MOKHOV.54 GeV2 . The most widely used is that of Bezrukov and Bugaev [52]: dσ dν = nucl α m2 A σγN (ε) ν 0. Ref. which proposes a simple parameterization: σγN (ε) (in µb) = 114. LBNL-44742 17 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. 52. we use the experimental data given by Armstrong et al. and m2 = 1. (23).00282 A1/3 σγN (ε). 2.25 κ ln 1 + + 2 m2 t − 2 2 2Mµ κm1 − m2 + t t 1 − 2 2Mµ t (23) 2 Mµ m2 t m2 0.31 × 10−6 cm2 /g (22) 0. m2 = 0. nucl =− 1 dE E dx = pair. nucl NA A 1 ν 0 dσ dν dν (21) The same expression as for the nucleus is usually used to calculate the pair production contribution from atomic electrons. Vol. 4). 4. The use here of a more precise photo-absorption cross section for ε < 5 than was used in the original model [52] does not change the photonuclear part of −dE/dx appreciably. V. July 2001 . Recent measurements of photonuclear interaction of muon in rock performed by the MACRO collaboration [53] agree quite well with Monte Carlo simulations based on the Bezrukov and Bugaev cross section. with Z 2 replaced with Z (e. The average energy loss for pair production is calculated by numerical integration: bpair.g. For smaller ε.25 2 ln 1 + 2 2t m1 + t t m2 Here ε is the energy loss of the muon and σ γN (ε) is the photoabsorption cross section defined below.3 + 1. [54]. No. The energy loss contribution is calculated by numerical integration of the differential cross section given by Eq. N. who proposed a simple parameterization of the energy loss based on a rigorous QED calculation.75 G (x) κ ln 1 + 1 2π t + 0. elec = − − 0. and is used for the present calculations: 1 dE Z 2E/Mµ bpair.

1 Fractional energy transfer ν 1.01 0.0 10.0 10. Vol.01 10–3 10–4 10–5 10–6 10–7 10–5 1 TeV/c µ– on iron Pai r To ta l( in c Pa ir To ta 10 TeV/c µ– on iron l( in c Br em s ud lu d n i 10–4 10–3 0.1 0. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 104 103 100.D. 76.01 0. E.1 Fractional energy transfer ν Figure 4: Differential cross section for total and radiative processes as a function of the fractional energy transfer for muons on iron.0 dσ/dν (cm2/g) 0.0 1. and S. July 2001 . l g Ph oto nu cle ar g in ni io t za ni io n) tio za Br em s Ph oto n ) ion uc lea r 10–4 10–3 0. 2. V. MOKHOV.0 1.0 LBNL-44742 18 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. GROOM.01 10–3 10–4 10–5 10–6 10–7 Photonuclear To ta l( 10 GeV/c µ– on iron in clu di ng io ni Pair z at io n) To ta l( in Pair clu di ng io n Bre z ms 100 GeV/c µ– on iron i io at n) Bre ms Ph oto nu cle ar 100.0 dσ/dν (cm2/g) 0. N. No.1 0.

The cross sections for bremsstrahlung and pair production from atomic electrons decrease at low energies because of electron recoil. 8. 4. MOKHOV. 4).620 2.345 1.279 2.081 Carbon This calculation 1.463 1.502 *Lohmann et al.125 3. 1.614 14.079 2. [4] are listed in Table 4 and plotted in Fig.679 7.313 3.497 — 4.4. nuclear screening has only a weak energy dependence. E.128 20.046 2. 1. 5 as a function of muon energy.028 3. July 2001 .01 3.468 3. (13).439 *Lohmann et al.3 Iron This calculation 3. Comparison with other works on muon radiative losses Selected b values from our present calculations and according to Lohmann et al.747 18. Fe. GROOM.371 — 20. For Z > 10 the results are nearly identical. Fe. [4] and.650 — * Obtained from the Lohmann et al.773 1.110 8. (13)). N.958 8. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 4: Comparison of btot calculations with those deduced from Lohmann et al.030 — 8. No. where the radiative contribution is small.10 3. two effects are responsible for the differences: 1.6 100 GeV 1. Since Lohmann et al. 3. V.8 Gaisser & Stanev 1. In the nuclear part of bremsstrahlung.308 20. and S.234 Lohmann et al.790 2. Total energy = 10 GeV Hydrogen This calculation 0.91 Oxygen This calculation 1.046 Water This calculation 1. and at low energies.D.959 3.444 18.795 14. For smaller atomic number.12 2. This is justified because for the fiducial cases H.392 7.5 Standard rock This calculation 1.972 2. which was omitted in Ref.108 3.459 4.840 *Lohmann et al.290 10 TeV 100 TeV 2. b tot is listed in units of 10−6 g−1 cm2 . 2. did not give the decomposition of the stopping powers except for H.760 — 3.960 4. This is apparent in our lower values of btot for carbon and water as compared with Lohmann et al.290 Lohmann et al.934 3. 1. and U our results agree with their values to within rounding errors in the 4th place. values of b tot for the materials given in the right half of the figure were obtained by assuming our values of the ionizing losses (without the bremsstrahlung correction given by Eq. In our calculations Lohmann et al. 2.859 2. 1. 76.361 4.548 2. Vol.814 2.62 1 TeV 1.14 5.941 Lohmann et al. and U.701 5. energy loss tables assuming our values for electronic losses (without the bremsstrahlung correction given by Eq. in the case of standard rock.40 3. and produces about a 4% reduction for hydrogen and a 10% reduction for carbon.360 3.870 2. The subtraction loses significance at 10 GeV.49 3. 1.312 Uranium This calculation 8. with Gaisser and Stanev [55].397 2.365 4.284 — 3.’s Z(Z + 1) factor is LBNL-44742 19 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.563 — — 3.278 *Lohmann et al.

5 1. 76.0 8 Iron Z = 26 bpair bbrems bnuc 106 b(E) (g−1 cm2) btot 2. V.5 2.5 2. 2. and S.5 3.0 0. GROOM. [4]. while the dashed/dotted lines are from Lohmann et al.5 1. The circles for standard rock are from Gaisser and Stanev [55].0 1. N.5 0. July 2001 .0 Hydrogen Z=1 3. No.D.0 btot bpair bbrems bnuc btot 106 b(E) (g−1 cm2) 6 bpair 4 bbrems 106 b(E) (g−1 cm2) 3 Water btot 2 bpair bbrems 2 0 20 Uranium Z = 92 bnuc 1 bnuc 0 4 Standard rock btot 106 b(E) (g−1 cm2) 15 106 b(E) (g−1 cm2) btot bpair 10 bbrems 3 bpair 2 1 0 bbrems bnuc 5 0 bnuc 2 10 100 1000 Muon energy (GeV) 104 105 2 10 100 1000 Muon energy (GeV) 104 105 Figure 5: b-values for a sampling of materials. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 2. Solid lines represent our results. MOKHOV. E. LBNL-44742 20 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. Vol.0 Carbon Z=6 106 b(E) (g−1 cm2) 1.5 0.0 0.

Heavy error bars indicate statistical errors only. while the light bars include systematic errors combined in quadrature.03). so that for hydrogen our contributions to these processes for 1–10 GeV are smaller by nearly a factor of two.01 < ν < 0.00 Figure 6: RD 34 measurements of energy losses by 150 GeV muons in iron [56]. knock-on electrons (δ rays. E. 2.’s values. [14]. GROOM. No.03 < ν < 0. July 2001 . The remaining sensitivity was to energy loss by pair production (dominant at the smallest energy transfers. included in the high-energy tail of the electronic loss and dominating for 0.03 0. The fractional deviations from our results are also shown for the CCFR collaboration’s revision of the Petrukhin and Shestakov cross section [43] and Rozental’s formula [57]. as was background from photonuclear interactions (which in this case is only about 7% of the total cross section).30 0. MOKHOV.05 0. and S. The RD 34 experimental results shown in Fig. The CERN RD 34 collaboration has measured the energy loss spectrum of 150 GeV muons in iron [56].30 0.10 –0. The energy deposition was measured in prototype hadron calorimeter modules for the ATLAS detector.30 Fractional energy transfer ν 0.00 –0.20 –0. N.10 0. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range replaced by Z(Z+0) in the low-energy limit. where the Kelner et al.02 0. Similarly.12). V. 0.12). Most probable electronic loss was subtracted.20 0. shown as fractional deviations from the present calculation. and bremsstrahlung (dominant for ν > 0.01 P&S via CCFR Rozental Deviation from P&S theory 0. 0. LBNL-44742 21 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. [14] model (basically that of Petrukhin and Shestakov) is used to obtain the bremsstrahlung component important at large ν. 76. Vol. including bremsstrahlung via Kelner et al.D. in the low-energy limit our bremsstrahlung and pair production contributions for carbon are 6/7 of Lohmann et al. The present calculation describes the data reasonably well. 6 are expressed as the fractional deviation from the present calculations. Deviations of alternate models from our calculations are shown by the solid line (Rozental’s formula [57]) and the dashed line (the CCFR collaboration’s revision of the Petrukhin and Shestakov cross section [43]) .20 0.50 1. while the others are evidently less successful.10 –0.

4% high. 8. Fluctuations in radiative energy loss The radiative cross sections at several energies are shown in Fig. GROOM.6%.82 MeV g −1 cm2 for a 1 TeV muon. 7. Our result is in nearly exact agreement with results obtained earlier with TRAMU [58]. E. July 2001 . The distribution of final muon momenta was obtained by following 10 5 1 TeV/c muons through 3 m (2360 g/cm2 ) of iron. An example illustrating the fluctuations is shown in Fig.6. but it is about an order of magnitude lower. in both cases excluding hydrogen from the fits. using the MARS14 Monte Carlo code [59]. Since E µc depends upon ionization potentials and density-effect parameters as well as Z. This is also the mean calculated from the simulated output. LBNL-44742 22 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. “Hard” losses are therefore more probable in bremsstrahlung. Among gases the worst fit is for neon (1. Muon critical energy Equation (5) defines the muon critical energy E µc as the energy for which electronic and radiative losses are equal. Vol. Empirical functions have been fitted to these data for gases and for solids/liquids. and are for guidance only. Potassium. No. and in fact energy losses due to pair production may very nearly be treated as continuous.880 Solids Gases H 1 He 2 Li Be B C NO Ne 5 10 Fe 20 Sn 50 100 200 100 Z Figure 7: Muon critical energy for the chemical elements. and cesium are 3. The photonuclear cross section has almost the same shape as the bremsstrahlung cross section at high ν. or 3.92) 0.9% high). The most probable loss is 8 GeV. The bremsstrahlung cross section varies roughly as 1/ν over most of the range (where ν is the fraction of the muon’s energy transferred in a collision). 4.5.4 MeV g −1 cm2 . N. far below the peak. while for pair production the distribution varies as ν −3 to ν −2 (see also Ref. 4000 2000 7980 GeV _____________ (Z + 1.94) 0. 4. while beryllium is 3. The equality of electronic and radiative losses comes at a higher energy for gases than for solids and liquids because of the smaller density-effect correction for gases. MOKHOV. V. Eµc for the chemical elements is shown in Fig. for a final energy (≈ momentum × c) of 977 GeV. 58).2% and 3. and S. As discussed in the text. Most of the other solids and liquids fall within 2. 3.885 Eµc (GeV) 1000 700 400 6590 GeV _____________ (Z + 1.D. the fits cannot be exact.5% of the fitted function. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 4. 2. 76. respectively.8% low. Our tables list a stopping power in iron as 9. the fitted functions shown in the figure cannot be exact. so that the mean loss should be 23 GeV. rubidium.

61]. 10% of the muons lost more than 3. polymers. giving some indication of the usefulness of our CSDA ranges. Cryogenic liquid forms of most of the elemental room-temperature gases (radon is the exception) are fairly common in laboratories. as obtained with the MARS14 Monte Carlo code [59]. Of special interest is Figure 3 of that paper.08 1 TeV muons on 3 m Fe 987 GeV/c 0. Dysprosium (Z = 66) was included to avoid a large gap in Z between cerium and tantalum (Z = 73).60. E. range. No. or 0. We have excluded gaseous bromine. At 10 TeV about half of them do. 60 and references therein. The effects of the “radiative tail” are enormous. and hence were included as well.04 0. at 106 TeV only about 15% of the muons reach the CSDA range. Radiative losses are not affected by density. or direction is beyond the scope of this paper. Because of differences in the density effect corrections.10 Median 1.06 0. 76. All “common” elements were selected. Vol. can be quite different. 62.0 0. Three out of the 105 candidates stopped in the iron. 2. simple compounds. and S. Treatment of radiative loss fluctuations in local energy deposit. presumably because of very inelastic photonuclear interactions. The comparative rarity of very low final momenta follows from the approach of the cross sections to zero as ν → 0. (boiling point LBNL-44742 23 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.6% lost more than 10% of their energy. and the more common heavy elements through Z = 94 (plutonium).02 0. GROOM. The list is given in Table 5. The median is 988 GeV/c.00 950 977 GeV/c FWHM 9 GeV/c Mean Fraction above p 1000 0. where the electronic and radiative losses are the same. In this section we discuss the rationale in the selection of the elements. The classic case of the propagation of very high-energy muons in “standard rock” is discussed in Ref. most elements through Z = 58 (cerium).2% of their energy and 2. N. 5.10 dN/dp [1/(GeV/c)] 0.9%. MOKHOV.01 –3 10 Final momentum p [GeV/c] 960 970 980 990 –4 10 0 Final momentum p [GeV/c] 200 400 600 800 1000 Figure 8: The momentum distribution of 1 TeV/c muons after traversing 3 m of iron. Electronic-loss straggling of high energy muons is described using a modified Vavilov distribution in Ref. but the muon critical energy. ionization energy loss differ between liquid and gaseous forms. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 0. The full width at half maximum is 9 GeV/c. showing the survival probabilities as a function of depth for muons from 1 TeV to 10 6 TeV.D. and biological materials for which tables of muon range-energy loss and radiative loss parameters are provided. It is usually handled by Monte Carlo methods [58. July 2001 . Tabulated data The contents of the main tables are shown in Tables 5–9. V. This included all elements with Z ≤ 38 (strontium). although moment expansions are sometimes used when likelihoods need to be assigned to individual events.

with no adjustments for the slight density difference. given atmospheric neutrino observations. and striated muscle (ICRU) are quite similar to soft tissue (ICRP). polystyrene. This varies with element. For at least two generations. New York. Sternheimer et al.65 g/cm 2 [65]. Z/A = 0. Liquid and gaseous xenon are not dissimilar in spite of a density ratio of 540. We use their definition for this most important material. BGO. soft tissue (ICRU 4-component). Materials such as trichloroethylene are included because of their role in important physics experiments.” Menon and Murthy later extended the definition: Z 2 /A = 5. For carbon.8◦ C.” which is not very well characterized. July 2001 . describes a family of polymers. by definition. The list contains perhaps more hydrocarbons than necessary. with average density 2. V. Their energy loss behavior is quite similar except in the case of Teflon. which meant that certain common compounds such as NaCl were not available. but their stopping powers differ by only 5% at minimum ionization. polyvinyltolulene) are included. Greisen and collaborators made seminal observations of muons at substantial depths [1]. where K. Dry ice was included with some difficulty. 2. LBNL-44742 24 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. [5]. Compact bone (ICRU) is similar to cortical bone (ICRP). The somewhat arbitrary concrete recipe is taken from The Reactor Handbook [64]. Kapton) were omitted. It was thus not-quite-sodium. as are several included materials such as eye lens (ICRP) and skeletal muscle (ICRP). [5] list 14 biological materials and “phantoms. N. [5]. two forms with different densities appear. The stopping powers of hydrocarbons are quite similar. with some qualifications: We limited ourselves to the compounds listed by Sternheimer et al. E. and S. In general the atomic weights of elements with only one isotope are known to great precision [63]. Plutonium is more than twice as dense as bismuth. No.5. along with the other compositions. Common inorganic scintillators (BaF2 . In all.D. CsI. The same “commonness” criterion was applied to the selection of the simple compounds listed in Table 6. MOKHOV.” This is by definition the overburden of the Cayuga Rock Salt Mine near Ithaca. skin (ICRP). Polymers are listed in Table 7. although it is tabulated by Sternheimer et al. Lohmann et al. LiF. like acrylic or polycarbonate. Ref. “Thin film” polymers (Mylar. in part to show the change of stopping power behavior as the H/C ratio changes (note the difference between acetylene and ethane). the formula is given in such a way as to convey as much structural information as possible. [4] further assumed the mean excitation energy and density effect parameters were those of calcium carbonate. 26.” mixtures which have nearly identical responses to radiation as the biological materials they replace. Liquid water and steam are both listed.65 g/cm2 and average atomic number 11.5. LiI. Muon energy loss in air is of great current interest. and and ρ = 2. GROOM. as are those of many polymers and biological materials. The chemistry given is typical. In some cases the name. in Ref. and may be found. 74 range/energy-loss tables are given for 63 elements We should not overemphasize these differences: Related materials have similar stopping-power properties when these are listed in MeV cm 2 /g (as we do) rather than in MeV/cm. NaI) are present. which contains no hydrogen. and no great variation is to be expected except perhaps for “Bakelite. 76. Omitted materials can be approximated by those on the list: Brain (ICRP). Except for dry air (and. 1 says only “Most of the ground consists of shales of various types. Mixtures of interest are given in Table 8. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 58. Vol. Where space permits. Photographic emulsion is of more historic interest. lung (ICRP). since the isotopic composition of samples from different sources varies. Polymers used for plastic scintillators (acrylic. standard rock) none of the materials is particularly well characterized. the depth of underground muon experiments has been reduced to depth in “standard rock. testes (ICRP). Atomic weights are given to the available significance.

Berger.370 3611.937 1.103 4. 2.960 7. 1169. I– 1 I– 2 I– 3 I– 4 I– 5 I– 6 I– 7 I– 8 I– 9 I–10 I–11 I–12 I–13 I–14 I–15 I–16 I–17 I–18 I–19 I–20 I–21 I–22 I–23 I–24 I–25 I–26 I–27 I–28 I–29 I–30 I–31 I–32 I–33 I–34 I–35 I–36 I–37 I–38 I–39 I–40 I–41 b Notes Hydrogen gas Liquid hydrogen Helium gas Liquid helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon (compact) Carbon (graphite) Nitrogen gas Liquid nitrogen Oxygen gas Liquid oxygen Fluorine gas Liquid fluorine Neon gas Liquid neon Sodium Magnesium Aluminum Silicon Phosphorus Sulfur Chlorine gas Liquid chlorine Argon gas Liquid argon Potassium Calcium Scandium Titanium Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Nickel Copper Zinc Gallium Germanium 8.165 × 10−3 0. E.652 1.613 1.9415 51.012182 10. 1050.580 × 10−3 1. 1056.948 39. The corresponding cryogenic liquids are evaluated at their boiling points at one atmosphere. 2020. 383. 1065.D.002602 6.745 1.904 5.456 1.125 0.862 1. 591.900 8. July 2001 . 711.615 1. and carbon is evaluated at several typical densities.753 1.396 0.874 8. 890.3050 26. 470. 658.663 × 10−4 0. 308.419 1.788 1. 302. 445.141 1.078 44. “D” for diatomic gas.180 7.002602 4. 420.639 1.608 1.724 1.811 12.845 58.468 1.813 1. and “S” for solid. 3102.6934 63. and Seltzer [5]. 581.981538 28.332 × 10−3 1. densities are as given by Sternheimer.436 1.522 1.550 2. 959.676 1. 345.0107 14. 759.639 1.989770 24. 2351. Vol.674 1.0983 40. 324.902 8.723 72. N.973761 32. 76.265 1. 982.630 1.00674 14. and S.9994 15.080 × 10−2 1.000 2.385 × 10−4 1.534 1. Atomic weights are given to their experimental significance.411 1.807 1.370 2.699 2. 369.428 1.623 1. Element Symbol Z H H He He Li Be B C C N N O O F F Ne Ne Na Mg Al Si P S Cl Cl Ar Ar K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 A 1.375 × 10−5 7.634 1. V.110 7.936 1.1797 22. 315. 551.574 1. 483. 1578.971 1. Except where noted.204 0.034 1.066 35.9961 54.379 1.662 × 10−3 1.941 9. 504. No.00674 15.9994 18.801 1.655 1.848 2.740 2.4527 35. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 5: Index of tables for selected chemical elements.451 1. 906.825 1.0855 30.9984032 18.508 1.623 1.39 69.933200 58.9984032 20.61 State D L G L S S S S S D L D L D L G L S S S S S S D L G L S S S S S S S S S S S S S S ρ [g/cm3 ] −dE/dx min Eµc −dE/dx [MeV cm2 /g] [GeV] & Range 4.00794 1. 571.0107 12.700 1. GROOM. 357. Physical states are indicated by “G” for gas. 1328.955910 47.519 1.329 2.948 39. 810.695 1.403 1.546 65. MOKHOV. 1153. 401.200 2. “L” for liquid. Gases are evaluated at one atmosphere and 20◦ C.133 5.4527 39. 526.323 VI– 1 VI– 1 VI– 2 VI– 2 VI– 3 VI– 4 VI– 5 VI– 6 VI– 6 VI– 7 VI– 7 VI– 8 VI– 8 VI– 9 VI– 9 VI–10 VI–10 VI–11 VI–12 VI–13 VI–14 VI–15 VI–16 VI–17 VI–17 VI–18 VI–18 VI–19 VI–20 VI–21 VI–22 VI–23 VI–24 VI–25 VI–26 VI–27 VI–28 VI–29 VI–30 VI–31 VI–32 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 LBNL-44742 25 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.938049 55.507 8.00794 4.540 6.440 7. 295.477 1. 612.867 50.995 × 10−3 1.664 1.989 4. 334.1797 20.595 1.

411 114.330 1.2 208.760 126.0289 244.081 1.224 92.500 S 8.078 196. 136.349 1. 76.94 106.478 × 10−3 L 2.289 1.500 L 3. 161. 232.064197 State ρ [g/cm3 ] −dE/dx min Eµc −dE/dx [MeV cm2 /g] [GeV] & Range 1.418 S 1.50 180. No.145 1.485 × 10−3 L 2. 134. Symbol Z As Se Br Kr Kr Rb Sr Zr Nb Mo Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb I Xe Xe Cs Ba Ce Dy Ta W Pt Au Hg Pb Bi Th U Pu 33 34 35 36 36 37 38 40 41 42 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 54 55 56 58 66 73 74 78 79 80 82 83 90 92 94 A 74. 195. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 5: continued Element Arsenic Selenium Bromine Krypton gas Liquid krypton Rubidium Strontium Zirconium Niobium Molybdenum Palladium Silver Cadmium Indium Tin Antimony Iodine Xenon gas Liquid xenon Cesium Barium Cerium Dysprosium Tantalum Tungsten Platinum Gold Mercury Lead Bismuth Thorium Uranium Plutonium Notes: 1. 226. 133.80 83.540 S 6.840 VI–33 VI–34 VI–35 VI–36 VI–36 VI–37 VI–38 VI–39 VI–40 VI–41 VI–42 VI–43 VI–44 VI–45 VI–46 VI–47 VI–48 VI–49 VI–49 VI–50 VI–51 VI–52 VI–53 VI–54 VI–55 VI–56 VI–57 VI–58 VI–59 VI–60 VI–61 VI–62 VI–63 2 2 2 LBNL-44742 26 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.657 S 8. V.873 S 3.255 1.149 1. July 2001 . 206.254 1.747 S 11.730 S 4. 180. Vol. 120.134 1.263 1.950 S 19. 200.357 1. 189.263 1.175 1. GROOM.96655 200. 271.320 L 13. Density effect parameters adjusted to this density using Eq.818 118.59 207.299 1.310 S 6.546 S 11.691 S 4.353 1. and S. 195.103 G 3.116 162. Density effect parameters calculated via the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm discussed in Appendix A. 143. 208.930 G 5. 274.62 91.278 1.D.356 1. (A. 137.350 S 9.300 S 21.327 140.90638 95. 262.904 83.343 1.90545 137.84 195.4678 87. 237.357 1.130 1.29 131.450 S 19.500 S 6.654 S 19.953 S 1.343 1. 145.122 1.92160 78.234 1.720 S 18.310 S 7. 195.710 121.650 S 7. E.8682 112. MOKHOV. 2.071 287.231 1.550 S 16. N.532 S 2.96 79. 124.128 1. 244. 214.020 S 10. 321. 278.255 1.42 107.370 1. 117.29 132.9479 183. 202.90447 131.80 85. 282. 211. 2.098 1.0381 238.98038 232.8). 136.570 S 10.385 1.128 1.277 1.259 1.506 S 8.220 S 12. I–42 I–43 I–44 I–45 I–46 I–47 I–48 I–49 I–50 I–51 I–52 I–53 I–54 I–55 I–56 I–57 I–58 I–59 I–60 I–61 I–62 I–63 I–64 I–65 I–66 I–67 I–68 I–69 I–70 I–71 I–72 I–73 I–74 b Notes S 5.

1178.054 1.49670 0.972 1.42207 0.49955 0.D.890 3.59861 0.278 1.56663 0.097 × 10−3 3.800 3. Berger. 176.460 0. The density of crystalline quartz is about 2. 927. 207. and “S” for solid. 1603.57778 0. 705.493 × 10−3 2.54265 0. V. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 6: Index of tables for selected simple compounds. No.304 2.41569 0.714 1.251 2.55509 0.010 7.42697 0.55509 0.686 1. MOKHOV.992 2. E. 564.dat at http://pdg.lbl.49929 0.510 0.563 4.272 2. Density effect parameters calculated via the Sternheimer-Peierls algorithm discussed in Appendix A.303 1.417 2.200 3.49989 0.123 2. (A. July 2001 . 1557. 1231.819 1. 76. 975.57275 0. 1312. 506. 1365. II– 1 II– 2 II– 3 II– 4 II– 5 II– 6 II– 7 II– 8 II– 9 II–10 II–11 II–12 II–13 II–14 II–15 II–16 II–17 II–18 II–19 II–20 II–21 II–22 II–23 II–24 II–25 II–26 II–27 II–28 II–29 b Notes 0.000 7.790 1.41939 0. 1287.53768 0.088 1.62334 0.072 2.158 2.650 1. LBNL-44742 27 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. N. “L” for liquid.494 6. and Seltzer [5].48710 0. SiO2 ) Sodium iodide (NaI) Toluene (C6 H5 CH3 ) Trichloroethylene (C2 HCl3 ) Water (liquid) (H2 O) Water (vapor) (H2 O) Notes: Z/A State L G S S S S G S S S G S S L G L S S G L S S L S S L L L G ρ [g/cm3 ] −dE/dx min Eµc −dE/dx [MeV cm2 /g] [GeV] & Range 2.656 1. GROOM. 227.867 1.672 × 10−4 0.42065 0. Bi4 (GeO4 )3 ) Butane (C4 H10 ) Calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) Calcium fluoride CaF2 Calcium oxide (CaO) Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) Solid carbon dioxide (dry ice) Cesium iodide (CsI) Diethyl ether ((CH3 CH2 )2 O) Ethane (C2 H6 ) Ethanol (C2 H5 OH) Lithium fluoride (LiF) Lithium iodide (LiI) Methane (CH4 ) Octane (C8 H18 ) Paraffin (CH3 (CH2 )n≈23 CH3 ) Plutonium dioxide (PuO2 ) Liquid propane (C3 H8 ) Silicon dioxide (fused quartz. 2.55097 0.198 1. which may be the density of cristobalite.460 1.655 1.025 1. 5 lists 2. 568.930 11. 2.47979 0.59497 0.789 2. 630. 136.003 2.305 1.703 0.635 3.20 g/cm3 . 708.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.614 1. 193.56437 0.647 1.49930 0.699 1.300 1. densities are those given by Sternheimer.8).32 g/cm 3 for SiO2 .130 2.787 1.665 1. “D” for diatomic gas. Physical states are indicated by “G” for gas. 1032.970 4. Density effect parameters adjusted to this density using Eq. 1400. Gases are evaluated at one atmosphere and 20◦ C. 223. Ref.493 2.052 1160. Composition not explained may be found in Seltzer and Berger [26] or in the file properties.253 × 10−3 0.49038 0.842 × 10−3 1.667 0.46262 0.243 2.49989 0. Vol. 1220. and S.40583 0.180 3. and the density of fused quartz is typically 2.562 × 10−4 VII– 1 VII– 2 VII– 3 VII– 4 VII– 5 VII– 6 VII– 7 VII– 8 VII– 9 VII–10 VII–11 VII–11 VII–12 VII–13 VII–14 VII–15 VII–16 VII–17 VII–18 VII–19 VII–20 VII–21 VII–22 VII–23 VII–24 VII–25 VII–26 VII–27 VII–27 2 1 1 1. Compound or mixture Acetone (CH3 CHCH3 ) Acetylene (C2 H2 ) Aluminum oxide (Al2 O3 ) Barium fluoride (BaF2 ) Beryllium oxide (BeO) Bismuth germanate (BGO. 903. Except where noted. 1203. 1094.58962 0.65 g/cm 3 . 1715.

779 1.lbl.684 1.929 1. 1104. Except where noted. III– III– III– III– III– III– III– III– III– 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Notes VIII– VIII– VIII– VIII– VIII– VIII– VIII– VIII– VIII– 1 1 Notes: 1.956 1110. 1156.42101 0.936 1. 1194.671 1. N.886 2. No.52792 0. Compound or mixture Air (dry. 2. Compound or mixture Bakelite [C43 H38 O7 ]n Nylon (type 6.890 1.50000 G 1. 6/6) [C12 H22 O2 N2 ]n Polycarbonate [OC6 H4 C(CH3 )2 C6 H4 OCO]n Polyethylene [C2 H4 ]n Polymethylmethacrylate (acrylic) Polystyrene [C6 H5 CHCH2 ]n Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) [C2 F4 ]n Polyvinylchloride (PVC) [CH2 CHCl]n Polyvinyltoluene [2-CH3 C6 H4 CHCH2 ]n Z/A 0.dat at http://pdg.200 1.313 1. Composition may be found in Seltzer and Berger [26] or in the file properties. Physical states are indicated by “G” for gas and “S” for solid.200 0.300 1.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.49731 0.255 1.079 1. V.lbl.D. 175. and Seltzer [5]. and Seltzer [5]. Table 8: Index of tables for selected mixtures.52697 0.49919 0.53937 0. actual densities of polymers will vary. IV– IV– IV– IV– IV– IV– 1 2 3 4 5 6 b IX– IX– IX– IX– IX– IX– 1 2 3 4 5 6 0. July 2001 .889 1. Berger.205 × 10−3 S 2.060 2. 1183.973 1.815 1. densities are those given by Sternheimer. 76.470 S 2.400 S 2. 1 atm) Concrete Lead glass Photographic emulsion Plate glass Standard rock Z/A State ρ [g/cm3 ] −dE/dx min Eµc −dE/dx [MeV cm2 /g] [GeV] & Range 1. (A.711 1. 1282. MOKHOV. 700. Densities are those given by Sternheimer.47992 0. 853. 235.190 1. 1107.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.300 S 6. 670.43663 0.8).53768 0.250 1.57034 0. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 7: Index of tables for selected high polymers. Berger.dat at http://pdg.180 1.50274 0.032 1.220 S 6. 696.54141 ρ −dE/dx min Eµc −dE/dx [g/cm3 ] [MeV cm2 /g] [GeV] & Range 1.688 1114.51201 0. GROOM.54790 0. Vol. E. and S. Composition not explained may be found in Seltzer and Berger [26] or in the file properties. Density effect parameters adjusted to this density using Eq. 693.650 LBNL-44742 28 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. Gases are evaluated at one atmosphere and 20◦ C.

982 1158.54903 0. 1183. 1032.850 1.53886 0.S.971 1. further changes were made. Alberto Fass´ (SLAC) was kind enough to make available his ASCII files of the density-effect coefficients o and composition.” first provided us with an exhaustive and supportive referee’s report.dat at http://pdg. GROOM.920 1.978 2. E.54938 0. and for his (and the editor’s) gentle reminders and infinite patience while the work was in progress. MOKHOV.lbl.52130 0. Physical states are indicated by “L” for liquid and “S” for solid. This led to many changes and additions. Biological material or phantom A-150 tissue-equivalent plastic Adipose tissue (ICRP) Blood (ICRP) Cortical bone (ICRP) C-552 air-equivalent plastic Eye lens (ICRP) MS20 tissue substitute Skeletal muscle (ICRP) Soft tissue (ICRP) Z/A State S S L S S S S S S ρ [g/cm3 ] 1. Hans Bichsel. 1032. N. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Table 9: Index of tables for selected biological materials.49969 0. including two new figures. and his suggested wording was used in parts of Sections 3. 1056.000 −dE/dx min Eµc −dE/dx [MeV cm2 /g] [GeV] & Range 1. Department of Energy under contract No.803 1.D. 748.029 1.54995 0.971 1. LBNL-44742 29 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.3. 953.760 1.040 1. 76. Densities are those given by Sternheimer. Finally.060 1. 1057. and Seltzer [5]. No. Vol.760 1. Steve Seltzer (NIST) answered our questions and made available code which produced computer-readable files of the main tables of ICRU 49. This work was supported by the U.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties.1 and 3. vastly aiding verification of our parameters. our “ghost author.970 1.55121 Acknowledgments We wish to thank Felix Boehm (Caltech) for the invitation to write this report. July 2001 .54977 0.934 1. 1063. V. Then.100 1. Bob Naumann (Dartmouth) carefully checked and corrected our structures for polymers.000 1. DE-AC03-76SF00098. Composition may be found in Seltzer and Berger [26] or in the file properties. making comparisons with our results much easier. Berger. and S.127 0. 2. via conversations and email. V– V– V– V– V– V– V– V– V– 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 b X– X– X– X– X– X– X– X– X– 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.55947 0.

Their recipe is given more succinctly in the EGS4 manual [28]. Vol. No. 5. and S.4. and not apply it in the case of a metallic compound like Nb3 Sn. better. as in the case of SiO 2 .3) to calculate I . h ¯ LBNL-44742 30 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables.D. it would seem sensible to apply this rule in the case of a tightly-bound material such as CsI. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Appendix A. Let nj be the number of the jth kind of atom in a compound (it need not be an integer for a mixture). Since the electrons in a compound are more tightly bound than in the constituent elements. and should be used. the effective I j are in general higher than those of the constituent elements. the Z-dependent terms can be sorted out to find that the mixture or compound is equivalent to a single material with Z A = j wj Zj Aj = j nj Zj j nj Aj nj Zj j ln I = j wj (Zj /Aj ) ln Ij j wj (Zj /Aj ) = j nj Zj ln Ij A. Although it is is not said. with the plasma energy hωp obtained using the expression from Table 1.13 before calculation of the mean (the “13% rule”). Berger and Seltzer discuss ways to extend the Bragg additivity rule in lieu of a detailed calculation [26]: (a) For a select list of materials (carbon and some common gases). they propose alternate mean excitation energies in their Table 5.00 (c) C = 2 ln(I/¯ ωp ) + 1. 26). (c) Both are superseded by experimental numbers when available. (A. GROOM. E. N. Bragg additivity has little meaning in calculating the density-effect correction. (a) I is obtained as described above (b) k is always taken as 3. 76. Stopping power and density-effect parameters for compounds and mixtures For most of the materials for which tables are given in this report. the excitation energies are multiplied by 1. This section concerns how to deal with an untabulated compound or mixture. Exceptions are provided by diatomic gases and by metals in metallic alloys or compounds. and the following algorithm is adopted from that version for the parameterization of Section 3.3 b (E) = j wj bj (E) There are pitfalls in actually using Eq. If the material of interest is not available in the tables of Ref. July 2001 . then the algorithm given by Sternheimer and Peierls [6] should be used. It is usual to think of a compound or mixture as made up of thin layers of the pure elements (or. constituent compounds for which tabulated data are available) in the right proportion (Bragg additivity [66]) . 2.1 Then dE dx = j wj dE dx A. V. MOKHOV. (b) For other elements. the relevant effective excitation energy and density-effect parameters have already been tabulated.1 (or Table 6 in Ref. and wj its weight fraction: wj = n j Aj k nk Ak A.2 j When the Bethe-Bloch equation is inserted and the radiative terms added.

8 and x1 = 4. three densities of carbon.6 and x1 = 4. A. Vol. July 2001 . LBNL-44742 31 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. E. either from the literature [5] or from the algorithm given above.2 0.804 A. One problem remains: Given the density-effect parameters.5 if C < 3. 3. N. and Seltzer [5].    2.5 11.25 12. MOKHOV.0 11. and the subscript r indicates the quantity evaluated at the desired density. V. Sternheimer noted that under quite general conditions √ δr (p) = δ p r . Berger.0 0. 5 lists both gaseous and liquid helium. for example the density of fused silica.0     2. A.0    1.” for which we scaled the parameters to the density of liquid hydrogen at its boiling point at a pressure of one atmosphere.0    1.0 and x1 = 5. which are not tabulated by Sternheimer. The comparisons are discussed at the end of Sect.5 and x1 = 5.0   1    1.0      3.0 10. and both steam and liquid water. 76.9 and x1 = 4.7 where r = ρ/ρ0 .681 otherwise if C < 5. and x0 = if I ≥ 100 eV. In this case. GROOM.0 ≤ C < 10.8 It is easily shown by matching different regions in Eq.804 a= C − 2 (ln 10) x0 . Liquid hydrogen is tabulated for the “bubble chamber density. I for the gas was used. 3 (x1 − x0 ) A.326 C − 1.0     0.0 if C ≥ 13.5 ≤ C < 11. Both algorithms were checked by calculating −dE/dx several ways.0 and x1 = 4.5 ≤ C < 12.0  if I < 100 eV.326 C − 1. and x0 = x1 = 0.326 C − 1. In an early paper [6]. 2.D. (11) that the parameters a and k are unchanged by the transformation.7 and x = 4.4.0 ≤ C < 11. or for solid and liquids at different densities than those tabulated.5 10. and S. This method was used to correct the parameters for several materials for which we prefer different densities.25 ≤ C < 13.5    if if if if if if C < 10.4 (e) In the case of gases. This implies [6] that C r = C − ln r 1 x0r = x0 − 2 log10 r 1 x1r = x1 − 2 log10 r . the ratio of desired to tabulated densities. No.2 0. taking advantage of the fact that Ref. x0 =   1. how does one modify them for the same material at a different density? This problem occurs for gases at different pressures.6 We have used this algorithm to calculate the density-effect coefficients for cryogenic liquids. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range (d) For solids and liquids.0 (f)  2.215 otherwise A.

2 = B (z) 1 . √ √ γγ Z 1/3 2 γγ Z 1/3 √ s= ≈ . 183 e 151 u = w + z. 2 B (z) = 1 1 + . 2.5 LBNL-44742 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. Direct pair production from screened nuclei Nikishov’s analytic form for the cross section is given by [50] dσ dν (2αre Z) (1 − ν) 2ε = (f1 + θf3 ) ln π ν me 2 + φ2 + θφ4 + I . STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Appendix B. θ B (z) ln + 45 45 45z 3 (z + 4) 9 9 3 (z + 4) z1 7 2 7 z2 + z + zθ ln2 + π 2 + 2 ln2 z 36 45 72 z1 7 3 7 653 28 2 + + z + zθ ln z + − + θ 18 20 36 270 9z 3 3 2 92 52 7 z2 + − z− + − − z θ B (z) ln 10 45 45z 9 18 z1 1 19 8 7 2 8 − − + z θ Li2 (y) + 2 Li2 + B (z) − z − 45 45 45z 9 18 z2 1 1 2 z2 8 B (z) + − Li2 (y) + ln . E. GROOM.1 pair. Vol. 4 z y= B. No. B. + zθ × 6 Li2 z 3 (z + 4) z2 2 z1 z= ν2 . θ (1 − ν) z1. 2 z2 Li2 is the dilogarithm function (Spence’s integral evaluated for n = 2) [67]. and S. MOKHOV.4 where B. 76. and I= 8 7 16 38 16 7 4 7 θ B (z) J+ + z + zθ H − z+ + + z+ 9 45 18 45 45 45z 9 9 16 2z 14 8 2 z 4 z 4z 7 + − z− + θ B (w) I+ − + − − z+ 2 45 9 9w 45 w 5 w 3 (w + 4) 9 9w 32 u 8u 88 16 8 z u2 + + − − + θ B (u) ln 2 45 w 45z 45w 5 w 9w u1 68 16 8 2z 8 z2 104 − + − − θ B (z) ln + + 45 45z 3w 3 w 9 z1 45z 8 4z 62 8 1 z 4 z + − − − + + θ ln z 15w 27 9w 45 w 5 w2 9 w z2 1 1 u2 − ln2 ln2 + 1 + zθ 2 3w u1 z1 8 B (z) (2) + + zθ − 2J+ + ln2 z2 − ln2 z1 .D.2 φ2 + θφ4 = B. γ = P0 /M. z 3 (z + 4) √ w = s z. The functions in the e square brackets are given by f1 + θf3 = 44 7 16 4 8 7 − − θ− + z + zθ ln z 45z 45 9 9 45 18 7 38 44 4 2 8 16 z2 z+ − + + z− + . nucl where ε = νE is the energy transferred to the e + e− pair. γ = P0 /M 32 B. N.3 + 3 2 z2 ln 2 z1 where z1 + z 2 . July 2001 . and θ = m2 /M 2 . V.

). No. 2 etc. u1. 4 4w 4 w (1) J+ = 2 Li2 1 z2 − Li2 (y) + ln (z1 ) ln z1 + z 2 z2 .9 LBNL-44742 33 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. 2. E.D. and S. 2 z1 z2 ln 1 − u1 z1 B. 76. V.. MOKHOV. w1 w1 w2 w2 − Li2 − 2 Li2 + Li2 u2 w2 w1 w2 B. B(u) and w1.7 J+ = Li2 (2) u1 z1 u2 z1 z2 u1 + Li2 − Li2 + ln z2 z1 + u 2 z2 + u 1 z1 u2 z2 u2 ln 1 − + ln ln [u (z1 + u2 )] . N. July 2001 . B(w) are the analogs of z1. y= . finally.2 .2 = B(u) H = Li2 z u+4 + Li2 − Li2 4w u (z + 4) z+4 u+4 + Li2 + Li2 z z+4 − 2 Li2 − Li2 u u+4 + π2 6 1 .2 . B(z). 4z u (w + 4) 4 w+4 + 2 ln (z1 ) ln (z2 ) − 4 ln (u1 ) ln (u2 ) − ln2 z + ln2 (z + 4) − ln 1 + 4 ln (u + 4) w B.2 . e. − ln z2 z2 zi − Li2 B. i. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range (u1. J+ = J+ + J+ .8 and.6 − ln (4w) ln (z + 4) + ln (16) ln (u + 4) − ln 2 (u + 4) + 2 ln2 u z+4w+4 z+4 u (1) (2) + ln (u) ln − ln (z) ln . I+ = Li2 u1 w1 w1 w1 + u 2 w2 w1 + u 2 u w2 π2 − Li2 + ln + ln w2 + u 1 3 w1 w2 z u1 u2 u2 u1 + ln ln 1 − − ln ln 1 − . Vol. GROOM.

J. Bethe. Y. Teller. M. E. W. Fiz. (John Wiley & Sons. 14 (1963). Vol. 5. Kgl. D59. M. New York. R. 24. 21. N. Mod. Phys. H. Mat. 43. 3. 3642–3647 (1990). Medd.D. Bethe. Phys. Phys. 3 of The Stopping and Ranges of Ions in Matter (Pergamon Press. Vol. D. Lindhard. 11. E. M. W. Bollinger. 24/1 (Springer-Berlin. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 30. Nucl. Smith. R. Tables and graphs of these data are available at http://physics. High Energy Particles. Atomic Nuclei 60. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 53. 1977). No. Ref. Uehling. Taylor. A. Phys. B. Jackson. Chem. Nucl. Sternheimer. Englewood Cliffs. 121 (1980). Bichsel. “Quantenmechanic der Ein. Rev. 7. 18. 17. Fermi and E. Sternheimer and R. Cocconi. M. 8 (1954). 399–408 (1947).” J.. section 8d. Livingston and H. Bichsel. July 2001 . V. J. Seltzer. 4. P. M. A. 101. 2. 133 (1952). and S. H. Rev. Gray (McGrawHill. 15. 271–283 (1993). Rev. 33. Birnbaum. J. Vol. H. M. M. R. W. 13. Kelner. 72. Phys.gov/PhysRefData/. “Energy Loss of Muons in the Energy Range 1–10000 GeV. Danske Videnskab. Data 28. 76.nist. 1975). H. P Ahlen. 9. “Stopping Powers and Ranges for Protons and Alpha Particles. 315 (1954). Sci. J. 017301 (1999). 4. 10. Rev. 3rd ed. N. P. Ziegler.’ Handbuch der Physik. edited by E. Rev. No. F. T. H. and F. 1952). 261– 276. Selskab. Inokuti. 1713–1852 (1999). Fano. 14. E. Berger. Rev. Kgl. 1972). 28. B3. 34 LBNL-44742 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. S.-Fys. L. Barkas. 60. M. Kaneko. Kopp. Rev. Medd. 117. Phys. No. Phys. 261–271 (1984). 8. Schiøtt.” ICRU Report No. Inc. p.und Zwei-Elektronen Probleme. Scharff. Voss. H. S. R. M. 20. see especially pp. “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 1998. 49 (1993). Danske Videnskab. New York. F. Kokoulin and A. H. A41. R. Mod. Greisen. Lohmann. Rev. 23. Mohr and B. Lindhard. Rev. Ann. U. S. Mat. D.” CERN Report 85–03 (1985). Hydrogen: Stopping Powers and Ranges in All Elements. R. Mod. and S. 13. Selskab. 297 (1971). Rev.-Fys. Jackson. J. Phys. GROOM. Rev. MOKHOV. 576–583 (1997) (Yad. J. 657 (1997)). 22. E. P. Mod. A. Rev. A. Andersen and J. 1 (1963). Peierls. 12. Sternheimer. 778 (1956). 3681–3692 (1971). Phys. 2. Phys. Ann. and R. 52. 485 (1960) 983–991 (1994). Rossi. 6. 1933). M. 16. G. Classical Electrodynamics. 273. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range References 1. D. 2nd ed. 9 245–390 (1937). Sci. and H. in American Institute of Phyics Handbook. Eisenberg. Petrukhin.. (Prentice-Hall. and K. Barrett. NJ. Phys. 19. Phys.

Nikishov. 29 Suppl. and H. V.. M. 41. S. 31. J. Sov. 44. Rev. Kokoulin and A. Phys. J. in Atomic. LBNL-44742 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (Dec. I. D. 983–991 (1994). STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 24. Nuovo Cim. 277 (1970). Heckmann. M. Petrukhin. 32. Petrukhin and V. R. R. P. Proc. Seltzer. 38. National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council. 5761 (1992). 5. T. 25. Agnello et al. W. B26. J. W. Phys. A146. Rev. K. M.. S. 27. 665–676 (1984). 39. 1233 (1997). 88. H. M. Phys.gov/PhysRefData/. ICRU Report 37. Phys. 27. “Stopping Powers for Electrons and Positrons. Bichsel. 34. S. R. Kelner. 74. Rev. 5417 (1989) 983–991 (1994). H. S. Phys. Andreev and E. 1996). Bethe and W. D45. 50. Hirayama. P. Berger. J. Seltzer. Petrukhin. A. Nucl. W. Phys. Nucl. 103. Kelner and Yu. Phys. 6067–6076 (1982). V. 1894–1898 (1999). Bugaev. 33. Sternheimer. D. 33. private communication. Phys. Phys. H. Kotov. Bichsel. J. Barkas and M. 43. Phys. Phys. and S. H.” International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. 7. B6. Rev. Appl. J. 45. Phys. available as CERN Preprint Server SCAN-9510048. W. DC (1984). and D. Sov. 40. preprint MSEPI 024-95. Bethe. Sternheimer. 36. H. Dyer. Int. Inst. Jour. McCarthy. 663 (1960). Kokoulin and A. Med.. 35. Berger. L. Lett. Molecular. Seltzer and M. A. Berger. “The EGS4 Code System. Phys. A. 48. Shestakov. 49. H. Seltzer. P. Phys. Berger. No. 87. J. 93 (1937). P. Ann. Jackson and R. 60. and M. (Am. Mod. Rev. 4.” in Studies in Penetration of Charged Particles in Matter. and M. Rev. 360 (1968)). H. Radiat. 42. H. W. 35 28. Barkas. Moscow (1995). M. B27. Leung. 30. Rev. Phys. 237 (1968) (Yad. N. 1189–1218 (1982). M. H. V. O. GROOM. Hung. “Tables of Energy Losses and Ranges of Heavy Charged Particles. Sakumoto et al. Lett. Y. J. Publication 1133 (1964). Washington. 371 (1995). A40. Roy. Biol. 1281–1289 (1978)). M. R. R. Rev.D. 16.. Vol. Rev. 29.nist. Sci. S. Rogers. J. Sternheimer. Acta Physica Acad. S. M. E. A. Soc. S. Atomic Nuclei 62. 39. D55. Phys.R.” SLAC-265. T. 851 (1952). M. S. Phys. July 2001 . Appl. A46. Racah. G. Radiat. Can. 46. MOKHOV. J. 4131 (1972). 37. 325 (1930). Seltzer and M. A. M. 35. R. 3042 (1992). J. 27. Hiraoka et al. 11. Tables and graphs of these data are available at http://physics. Chap. Heitler. N. Phys. R. 47. R. Berger. 7. A. 26. Petrukhin. 46. Rev. V. Nelson. Phys. S337 (1968). This paper corrects and extends the results of [26]. Kokoulin and A. and Optical Physics Handbook. R. Phys. 2. edited by G. 26 (1963). 1985). 76. 677–691 (1978) ((Yad. Kelner. Rev. Int. 6971 (1983) (erratum). 83 (1934). Bichsel. Drake. p.

New York. 53. D5. 94. Tech. Phys. 455–463(1997). Armstrong et al. Phys. Van Ginneken. Sov... S. 67. S. A. Bugaev. Nucl. pp. July 2001 . Stanev. Phys. Phys. in Proc. 87–99. 1 (1993). 66.fnal. Instrum. Wapstra. S. The Reactor Handbook. edited by R.gov. C. Caso et al. Nucl. 59. C. 68. B.V. Ramana Murthy. Mashnik. 55. Phys. A. 63.7. E.. 2.” Eur. S. Bragg and R. National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series. Vol. Rev. 61. 172 (1996). Phys. V. 1195–1207 (1981)). September 14-16. Phys. Uspekhi 11. and S. 55. Z. N. 1999). Nucl. C15. Kleeman. I. 448 (1998) (Yad. V. E. Stegun. G. Methods A251. J. Scapparone et al. 76. Striganov. V. A. TN. S. N.. Nucl. 10. Amsterdam. V. of the Fourth Workshop on Simulating Accelerator Radiation Environments (SARE4). 27.. 2339 (1996). 60. Philos.gov/MARS/. A. A565. Instrum. Van Ginneken. Chem. 9. 397–400 (1999). D44. Phys. Mokhov. Mokhov.) 51A. 1. Methods A322. Menon and P. Ibaraki. Proc. Phys. V. 1964). Weast. A. Berger et al. W. I. R. Printing Office. “The MARS Code System User’s Guide. Kelner. CERNLIB routine DDILOG is used to calculate the function. 1960). C3. Suppl. Fermilab-Conf-00/066 (2000). Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances. Vol. Phys. C73. Groom et al. The values calculated in this paper are used in the 2000 revision of the Gaisser and Stanev review in D. Rozental Sov.” Fermilab-FN-628 (1995). The dilogarithm (Spence’s integral for n = 2) is given by Eq. M. No. Lipari and T. 62. Fermilab-Conf-98/379 (1998). Nauk. K. I.lbl. 61. (North Holland. N. in Progress In Elementary Particle and Cosmic Ray Physics. No. Japan. Atomic Nuclei 61. LBNL-44742 36 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. GROOM. I. 161–243. Pure and Appl. H. Phys. 33 635–643 (1981) (Yad. L. S. Suppl. See also http://pdg. Armstrong et al. 318 (1905). Sierk. H. J. G. B (Proc. (Tsukuba. Striganov. in Proc.. 511 (1998)).1. Nucl. Bezrukov and E. Nucl. E. T. Sci. L. Abramowitz and I. Striganov. Audi and A. 21–39 (1986). 1 (2000). 1 (2000). 58. 1967). G. A. 1998. Handbook of Mathematical Functions. J. Vol. Mokhov. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range 51. MOKHOV. pp. nuclth/9812038-v2-16-Dec-1998. 91 (1968)). B. B41. J. Gov. 75A. 445 (1972). 2nd ed. (U. http://www-ap. 52. “Review of Particle Physics. 56. Phys. of ICRS-9 International Conference on Radiation Shielding. Mag. 1640 (1972). 57. 54. (Interscience. 225–230 (1992). “Review of Particle Physics.. N. 1 (1998). 167–171. Phys. 64.” Eur. Phys. 49 (1968) (Usp. Rev. Phys.Ranft. Nucl. J. 65. E. P. J. 3543 (1991). Knoxville. Nucl. M. T.D. 33.

The format is identical with TABLE II. 4 Computer-readable versions of these tables can be found at http://pdg. as introduced in Sect. A: Atomic weight. TABLE II: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for simple compounds. Gas density is evaluated at 20 ◦ C. as well as CSDA range obtained by integrating the total (Eq. The contents of TABLE V and other information are given in Table 9. and S. TABLE V: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for biological compounds. The spacing of the independent variable is fairly uniform on a logarithmic scale. except that Z/A (Eq.D. The table is interrupted to show the points at which minimum ionization and muon critical energy (Eq. V. ρ: Density. E. GROOM. (15)) and the components of radiative loss rate (see Eqs. a—δ0 : Sternheimer et al. The contents of TABLE IV and other information are given in Table 8.gov/AtomicNuclearProperties LBNL-44742 37 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. TABLE VI: b values for the elements listed in Table I. The format is identical with TABLE II. A radiative loss field is left blank if the stopping power contribution is less than 0. The header defines the element and state. No.lbl. The body of the table presents ionizing energy loss (Eq. (11). TABLE VII has the same format as TABLE VII. 2. The contents of TABLE II and other information are given in Table 6. TABLE VII has the same format as TABLE VII. The format is identical with TABLE I. (1) and (2). MOKHOV. density effect parameters. 3. TABLE IX: b values for the mixtures listed in TABLE IV. The contents are listed in Table 9. TABLE III: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for high polymers. The contents are listed in Table 8. The format is identical with TABLE I. TABLE VII: b values for the compounds listed in TABLE II. The contents are listed in Table 7. (3)).0001.4 and Eq.3)) replaces Z and A. The contents of TABLE III and other information are given in Table 7. TABLE VII has the same format as TABLE III except that Z/A replaces Z and A. The contents of Table I and other information are given in Table 5. TABLE VIII: b values for the high polymers listed in TABLE III. The corresponding momentum p is also given.3))) replaces Z and A. STRIGANOV Muon Stopping Power and Range Explanation of Tables4 TABLE I: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for selected chemical elements. The contents are listed in Table 5. N. TABLE IV: Muon energy loss rate and CSDA range for mixtures. TABLE X: b values for the biological compounds listed in TABLE V. Vol. The contents are listed in Table 6. I: Mean excitation energy. as a function of the muon’s initial kinetic energy T . Interpolation in log E is used to generate the b values shown in TABLE I and for the ionizing loss calculations. and gives the parameters used to calculate the electronic stopping power: Z: Atomic number. (A. TABLE VII has the same format as TABLE VII. (5)) occur. (A. except that Z/A (Eq. July 2001 . 76.