Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250
www.elsevier.com/locate/nuclphysa

Predictions for the α decay of superheavy nuclei of

Z = 119 − 120 isotopes
Haitao Yang a,b , Zhongxia Zhao a , Xiaopan Li a , Yan Cai a , Xiaojun Bao b,∗
a Department of Physics and Chemistry, Zhaotong University, Zhaotong 657000, People’s Republic of China
b Department of Physics, Collaborative Innovation Center for Quantum Effects, and Key Laboratory of Low
Dimensional Quantum Structures and Quantum Control of Ministry of Education, Hunan Normal University,
Changsha 410081, People’s Republic of China
Received 29 March 2021; received in revised form 2 June 2021; accepted 4 June 2021
Available online 10 June 2021

Abstract
A new α preformation factor formula was proposed in the framework of unified fission model (UFM), the
coefficients of the formula were obtained by fitting the extracted α preformation factors of 465 nuclei with
Z = 62 − 103. The root mean square (RMS) deviation of the calculated α preformation factors with the
extracted values is 0.388, indicating that the formula can describe the α particle preformation probability
reliably. Then the α decay half-lives for recently observed 76 superheavy nuclei (SHN) are calculated by the
UFM with the new α preformation factor formula. The comparison between the calculated values and the
experimental data demonstrates that the UFM taking the preformation factor into account is a useful tool to
investigate the α decay half-lives of SHN. Encouraged by this, the predictions of α decay half-lives for SHN
Z = 119, 120 isotopes are made by using the theoretical mass tables FRDM2012, WS4 and WS2016+RBFs
to determine the Qα values. The predictions can provide references for experiments of synthesizing new
SHN if the mass tables are accurate enough.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Preformation factor; α decay; Half-lives; Superheavy nuclei

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: baoxiaojun@hunnu.edu.cn (X. Bao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122250
0375-9474/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

1. Introduction

The production of superheavy nuclei (SHN) has become a hot topic in nuclear physics, be-
cause it associates with the existence of the island stability, the shell evolution and structure
properties in SHN [1–7]. Up to now, the lighter isotopes of SHN Z = 110 − 113 were produced
in cold fusion reaction [8,9], and over 10 isotopes of the SHN Z = 114 − 118 were synthesized
by the hot-fusion reactions [10–12]. α decay is one of the most important decay modes for SHN,
it can be taken as a reliable way to identify new synthesized SHN and to obtain useful informa-
tion about the nuclear ground state properties [13–16], so it is crucially important to predict the
α decay half-lives for unknown SHN accurately.
In 1928, Gamow [17] and Condon and Guerney [18] first successfully explained the α de-
cay through tunneling of the potential barrier. In recent years, many theoretical models and
methods are applied to studying the α decay half-lives, such as the density-dependent cluster
model (DDCM) [19–21], the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) [22–26], the two-potential
approach (TPA) [27–29], the unified fission model (UFM) [30,31], the relativistic mean field
(RMF) theory [32,33], the analytical superasymmetric fission (ASAF) model [34,35] and so on.
All of them can describe α decay half-lives successfully to some extent.
The α preformation factor is used to describe the formed probability before emitting from
the parent nuclei and the reliable preformation factors can help to estimate the α decay half-
lives of SHN accurately. Generally, the α preformation factors were assumed as constant [22,
36,37], but they would change obviously near the shell closures, so it is not available for large
nuclei regions. In fact, the effective preformation factor can be extracted from the ratios between
the calculated α decay half-lives and the experimental data. There are many approaches used
to calculate the preformation probability [38–47]. In some Refs. [34,35,48], the preformation
factor is interpreted as the pre-scission part of barrier penetration, which is an effective way to
investigate the α decay half-lives. However, it is difficult to understand how the α particle forms
and the motion inside the parent nucleus because of the complicated nuclei potential and the
structure of the quantum many-body system. The preformation probability is affected by many
factors, such as the deformation of daughter nucleus [49–51], the shell closure effect, the isospin
asymmetry of the parent nucleus [52,53], the blocking effect of unpaired nucleons in the open
shells of the parent nucleus [28,50], the valence protons and valence neutrons interaction [29,
52,54]. At present, there are several empirical formulas proposed to describe the α preformation
factor, Gangopadhyay [55] put forward that the logarithmic of the preformation factor has a linear
relationship with the product of valence nucleons when the mass number is fixed. This formula
is suitable for medium mass nuclear areas. The effect of the angular momentum taken away
by the α particle was considered for α preformation factor in Ref. [50]. Recently, an empirical
formula for α preformation factor is proposed by He et al. [56] through modifying the original
formula of Zhang et al. [57], which incorporates more nuclear structural information and can
reproduce the extracted α preformation factors well with only 7 parameters in the framework
of GLDM. In the present work, we proposed a suitable formula for α preformation factor in
the framework of the UFM by modifying the original formula of He et al. [56], and extracted
α preformation factors for 456 heavy nuclei with Z = 62 − 103 in the UFM. The preformation
factor formula coefficients are obtained by fitting the extracted preformation factors. Then we
check the utility of the UFM with considering the α preformation factor for α decay half-lives
of SHN. Encouraged by the good agreement between the calculated results and the experimental
data, some predictions are made by the UFM with considering the α preformation factor for
unknown SHN Z=119,120 isotopes. It is well known that the reliable predictions also depend on

2
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

the accurate mass models. In this work, we choose three macroscopic-microscopic mass models
to determine the Qα for SHN Z=119-120. It is worth mentioning that the microscopic mass
models such as the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum (DRHBc) [58–
61] and the relativistic continuum Hartree-Bogoliubov (RCHB) [62] have also achieved great
success.

2. Theoretical framework

In the framework of the UFM, the α decay half-life can be obtained by T = ln 2/λ, and the
α decay constant is defined as λ = Pα ν0 P , where the Pα denotes the α decay particle preforma-
tion factor. The assault frequency ν0 was proposed within a microscopic method deriving from
viewpoint of quantum mechanics [30], which can be written as

ω (G + 32 )h̄
ν0 = = , (2.1)
2π 1.2πμR02
where R0 , G and μ are the radii of the parent nucleus, principal quantum number and the re-
duced mass, respectively. The barrier penetrability P is obtained by using the Wentzel-Kramers-
Brillouin (WKB) approximation, which is expressed as

Rout
2
P = exp[− 2μ(V (r) − Qα )dr], (2.2)
h̄
Rin

where Rin and Rout are incoming and outgoing points with V (Rin ) = V (Rout ) = Qα . The po-
tential barrier V (r) includes the Coulomb potential, the nuclear proximity potential, and the
centrifugal potential barrier for r  R1 + R2 , but for R0  r  R1 + R2 , the potential barrier
V (r) is assumed as a polynomial [31]. Here, R0 , R1 and R2 are the radii of the parent nucleus,
daughter one, and emitted α particle, respectively, which are written as [63]
1/3 −1/3
Ri = 1.28Ai − 0.76 + 0.8Ai fm, i = 0, 1, 2. (2.3)
The potential barrier V (r) is taken as,

a0 + a1 r + a2 r 2 R0  r  R1 + R2
V (r) = Z1 Z2 e 2 (2.4)
Vp + Vl + r r  R1 + R2 ,
where Z1 and Z2 are the charge numbers of the emitted α particle and daughter nucleus, re-
spectively. The coefficients a0 , a1 and a2 in the polynomial can be determined by the boundary
conditions. The nuclear proximity potential Vp has been addressed in detail in Refs. [30,31]. The
centrifugal potential barrier Vl is expressed as

h̄2 l(l + 1)
Vl = , (2.5)
2μr 2
where l is the angular momentum transferred by the α particle. Based on the conservation of the
spin and parity in the decay process [64] and the principle of least action, we assume, for the sake
of simplicity, that the angular momentum carried out by the emitted α particle is the minimum
value of l, then the angular momentum lmin taken away by the α particle is calculated by

3
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

⎧
⎪
⎪j for even j and πp = πd ,
⎪
⎨ + 1
j for even j and πp = πd ,
lmin = (2.6)
⎪
⎪ for odd j and πp = πd ,
⎪
⎩
j
j + 1 for odd j and πp = πd ,
where j = |jp − jd |. jp , πp , jd , πd are the spin and parity values of the parent and daughter
nuclei, respectively. The experimental α decay constant λexp is calculated by
ln2
λexp = exp = Pα νP . (2.7)
T1/2
If the α particle preformation factor is taken as unity, then the theoretical decay constant λcal can
be expressed as
ln2
λcal = cal
= νP . (2.8)
T1/2
Then we can get the extracted α particle preformation factor. The logarithms of the extracted α
particle preformation factor can be written as
exp
log10 Pαexp = log10 T1/2
cal
− log10 T1/2 . (2.9)
Considering the nuclear shell effect, the isospin asymmetry effect, the blocking effect of unpaired
nucleons and the effect of valence protons and valence neutron interaction, we proposed a new
formula for α particle preformation factor, which is similar to the original formula of He et al.
[56] in the framework of UFM, the formula can be written as
log10 Pα = {a + b[(Z − Z1 )(Z2 − Z) + (N − N1 )(N2 − N )]
(2.10)
+c[(Z − Z1 )(N − N1 )] + h + al l(l + 1)}I + dA,
where Z, N , and A are the proton, neutron and mass number of the parent nucleus. Z1 and Z2 (N1
and N2 ) are the proton (neutron) magic number around Z(N ) (Z1 < Z  Z2 , N1 < N  N2 ).
The proton magic number is taken as 50, 82 and 120, and the neutron magic number is taken as
82, 126, 162 and 184 [56]. I is the isospin asymmetry. l is the angular momentum taken away by
emitted α particle. The second to fifth terms in curly bracket of the formula represent the shell
closure effect of the protons and neutrons, the effect of valence protons and valence neutrons
interaction, the blocking effect of unpaired nucleons for odd-A and double odd nuclei, and the
effect of the angular momentum taken away by the α particle, respectively. All the above terms
take into account the effect of isospin asymmetry.

3. Numerical results and discussions

3.1. Refitting the coefficients of the α decay preformation factor formula

In the present work, in order to get the global coefficients of the α decay preformation factor
formula, we choose 465 reference nuclei (159 even-even, 241 odd-A, 65 odd-odd nuclei) whose
α decay properties (Qα values, α decay half-lives, the spin and parity of the parents and daughter
nuclei) are well known [65,66]. These nuclei consist of medium and heavy nuclei spanning in
the range of 62 Z 103. The adjustable parameters a, b, c, d, al and h of the Eq. (2.10) are
obtained by fitting those nuclei extracted preformation factors, and are listed in Table 1. The pa-
rameter h is the blocking effect of unpaired nucleon, the values of h are 0, -2.24356 and -4.47225

4
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

Table 1
The parameters for Eq. (2.10).
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
a 2.20476 c -0.00406 al -0.06939 ho−A -2.24356
b 0.00897 d -0.00367 he−e 0 ho−o -4.47225

Fig. 1. Comparison of the theoretical α preformation factors and extracted from the experimental data for the 456 nuclei
ranging from Z=62 to Z=103.

for even-even nuclei, odd-A nuclei and odd-odd nuclei, respectively. The logarithm of the the-
oretical α preformation factors and the extracted data from the experiment as a function of the
neutron number are plotted in Fig. 1. It can be seen that the α preformation factors calculated by
Eq. (2.10) can reproduce the extracted data well. The α preformation factors decrease dramati-
cally near the neutron number N = 126, this phenomenon reflects the strong shell closed effect.
The big deviations occurring for several nuclei (N  152) are mainly due to the sub-shell effect
and nuclei deformation. Firstly, the neutron number N = 152 is a neutron sub-magic number
[26], and it was not considered in the α preformation factor. In addition, although the deforma-
tion is common for heavy nuclei (N  126) [27], the effect of nuclei deformation was neglected
in the α preformation formula and theoretical model. In order to test the reliability of the α decay
preformation factor formula, the root mean square (RMS) deviations were calculated by,

1/2
1
N
σ= [log10 (Pαcal. ) − log10 (Pαexp. )]2 . (3.11)
n
i=1

The calculated values of σ for the three sets of data: 159 even-even, 241 odd-A, 65 odd-odd
nuclei are 0.283, 0.420 and 0.480, respectively. The RMS deviation for all nuclei is 0.388. This
result is better than others made by Seif et al. [50] and by Zhang et al. [57]. The result demon-
strates that Eq. (2.10) could describe the α preformation probability reasonably in the framework
of the UFM.

5
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

3.2. Predictive power based on new α decay preformation factor of UFM

In order to test the prediction ability of UFM with considering the α preformation factor when
extending the applications of preformation factor to SHN regions, the α decay half-lives for the
recently observed 76 SHN are calculated by the UFM with the new α preformation factor for-
mula, and are compared with the experimental data. The calculated results are listed in Table 2.
The first five columns denote α decay channel, the experimental α decay energy, spin and parity
state of parent and daughter nuclei, and the minimum angular momentum taken away by the α
particle, respectively. The last two columns present the experimental α decay half-lives and the
calculated values. All those experimental information is taken from the evaluated nuclear prop-
erties table NUBASE2016 [65], the evaluated atomic mass table AME2016 [66], and Ref. [67].
The α decay energy and decay half-lives are in units of MeV and s. Elements with superscripts
“m”, “p” indicate assignments to excited isomeric states. “()” and “#” denote uncertain spin and
parity, and the values estimated from the trends in around nuclei, respectively. The minimum
angular momentum lmin is calculated by Eq. (2.6). In some cases, the spin and parity of some
SHN are unknown, we may assume that the angular momentum taken away by α particle is zero.
From Table 2, one may see that the results from the UFM considering α preformation factor are
in agreement with the experimental data. To clearly reflect the agreement for the α decay half-
lives between our calculated result and the experimental data, we calculate the RMS deviations
between the logarithms of the calculated half-lives and the experimental data. The RMS devia-
tion for 75 SHN is 0.725, which is better than the result of Zhao et al. [68] of 0.799 for 74 SHN
utilizing the GLDM with consideration of the preformation factor (48 parameters). However, for
a few nuclei, such as 270,274,275 Mt, 279,281 Ds, 274 Rg and 293 Lv, the deviations between experi-
mental data and calculated values are relatively large. This phenomenon can be interpreted by the
following reasons: firstly, this may be because we did not consider the effect of the centrifugal
potential, their transfer angular momentum taken away by α particle may be not zero. Especially
for those lmin large nuclei, the centrifugal potential plays an important role and should not be
neglected in decay process [67]. Secondly, our calculation is based on the decay of parent nu-
cleus from the ground state to ground state for those nuclei, but the branching ratio transmitting
to the first excited state could reach up to 30% [56]. If those spin and parity uncertain nuclei are
excluded, the RMS deviation for the rest 35 SHN is 0.538. The result indicates that the UFM with
considering the preformation factor is a useful tool to investigate the half-lives of SHN when the
Qα values, the spin and parity are accurate enough.

3.3. Predictions for α decay half-lives of Z=119-120 isotopes using UFM with considering the
preformation factor

In the present work, the α decay half-lives of SHN with Z = 119 − 120 are predicted using
the UFM with considering the α preformation factor. It is well known that the α decay half-lives
is sensitive to changes in the decay energy; a small change in the decay energy can lead to an
order of magnitude or even more changes in the calculated half-lives. So in order to make a
comparison, the Qα values used in our calculations are taken from the theoretical FRDM2012
[69], WS4 [70], WS2016+RBFs [71] nuclear mass tables. The calculated results have been listed
in Table 3. In each part of this table, the first four columns denote the α decay, spin and parity state
of parent and daughter nuclei, and the minimum angular momentum taken away by α particle,
respectively. The lmin is calculated using Eq. (2.6), where the spin and parity values for the
parent and daughter nuclei are extracted from the calculated results of odd-nucleon spin and

6
 H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al.
Table 2
Comparison between experimental α decay half-lives of superheavy nuclei and the calculated results from the semiclassical approaches.
exp exp
α transition Qα (exp.) jpπ jdπ lmin log10 T1/2 UF M
log10 T1/2 α transition Qα (exp.) jpπ jdπ lmin log10 T1/2 UF M
log10 T1/2
255 Rf→ 251 No
104 102 9.055 (9/2− ) (7/2+ ) 1 0.536 0.234 256 Rf→ 252 No
104 102 8.926 0+ 0+ 0 0.317 0.128
258 Rf→ 254 No
104 102 9.190 0+ 0+ 0 -0.981 -0.654 259 Rf→ 255 Nop
104 102 9.030 7/2+ # (7/2+ ) 0 0.455 0.307
260 Rf→ 256 No
104 102 8.900 0+ 0+ 0 0.021 0.307 261 Rf→ 257 No
104 102 8.650 3/2+ # (3/2+ ) 0 0.902 1.615
263 Rf→ 259 No
104 102 8.250 3/2+ # (9/2+ ) 4 3.342 4.195 256 Db→ 252 Lr
105 103 9.340 − − 0 0.385 0.077
258 Db→ 254 Lr
105 103 9.500 − − 0 0.850 -0.340 259 Db→ 255 Lrm
105 103 9.580 9/2+ # (7/2− ) 1 -0.292 -0.850
259 Sg→ 255 Rf
106 104 9.765 (11/2− ) (9/2− ) 2 -0.383 -0.786 260 Sg→ 256 Rf
106 104 9.901 0+ 0+ 0 -1.911 -1.870
261 Sg→ 257 Rf
106 104 9.714 (3/2+ ) (1/2+ ) 2 -0.729 -0.577 263 Sg→ 259 Rf
106 104 9.400 7/2+ # 7/2+ # 0 0.030 0.101
267 Sg→ 263 Rf
106 104 8.630 − 3/2+ # 0 2.803 2.791 269 Sg→ 265 Rf
106 104 8.650 − 3/2+ # 0 2.477 2.024
271 Sg→ 267 Rf
106 104 8.890 − − 0 2.424 1.158 261 Bh→ 257 Db
107 105 10.500 (5/2− ) 9/2+ 3 -1.873 -2.019
264 Bh→ 260 Db 9.960 − − 0 0.095 -0.676 266 Bh→ 262 Db 9.430 − − 0 0.398 0.970
107 105 107 105
267 Bh→ 263 Db 9.230 − − 0 1.342 1.205 270 Bh→ 266 Db 9.060 − − 0 2.358 1.557
107 105 107 105
7

272 Bh→ 268 Db 9.300 − − 0 1.053 0.753 274 Bh→ 270 Db 8.950 − − 0 1.778 1.818
107 105 107 105
264 Hs→ 260 Sg
108 106 10.591 0+ 0+ 0 -2.967 -2.826 265 Hs→ 261 Sg
108 106 10.470 3/2+ # (3/2+ ) 0 -2.708 -2.064
268 Hs→ 264 Sg
108 106 9.623 0+ 0+ 0 0.152 0.002 269 Hs→ 265 Sg
108 106 9.350 9/2+ # 9/2+ # 0 1.204 1.324
270 Hs→ 266 Sg
108 106 9.070 0+ 0+ 0 0.954 1.827 273 Hs→ 269 Sg
108 106 9.700 3/2+ # − 0 0.025 -0.509
275 Hs→ 271 Sg
108 106 9.440 − − 0 -0.538 0.212 269 Mt→ 264 Bh
109 107 10.670 5+ #, 6+ # − 0 -0.538 0.212
270 Mt→ 266 Bh − − 274 Mt→ 270 Bh − −

Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

109 107 10.180 0 -2.201 -0.235 109 107 10.600 0 -0.071 -2.113
275 Mt→ 271 Bh 10.480 − − 0 -0.932 -2.283 276 Mt→ 272 Bh 10.100 − − 0 -0.201 -0.819
109 107 109 107
278 Mt→ 274 Bh
109 107 9.630 − − 0 0.845 0.503 267 Ds→ 263 Hs
110 108 11.780 3/2+ # 3/2+ # 0 -5.000 -4.434
269 Ds→ 265 Hsm
110 108 11.280 9/2+ # 9/2+ # 0 -3.638 -3.187 270 Ds→ 266 Hs
110 108 11.117 0+ 0+ 0 -3.688 -3.153
271 Ds→ 267 Hs
110 108 10.870 13/2− # 5/2+ # 5 -1.046 -0.527 273 Ds→ 269 Hs
110 108 11.370 13/2− # 9/2+ # 3 -3.620 -3.383
277 Ds→ 273 Hs
110 108 10.830 11/2+ # 3/2+ # 4 -2.222 -1.760 279 Ds→ 275 Hs
110 108 10.080 − − 0 0.322 -0.863
281 Ds→ 277 Hs
110 108 9.510 3/2+ # 3/2+ # 0 1.967 0.784 272 Rg→ 268 Mt
111 109 11.197 5+ #, 6+ # 5+ #, 6+ # 0 -2.347 -2.073
274 Rg→ 270 Mt 11.362 − − 0 -1.538 -3.204 278 Rg→ 274 Mt 10.850 − − 0 -2.097 -2.031
111 109 111 109
279 Rg→ 275 Mt 10.520 − − 0 -0.745 -1.646 280 Rg→ 276 Mt 10.146 − − 0 0.633 -0.183
111 109 111 109
(continued on next page)
 H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al.
Table 2 (continued)
exp exp
α transition Qα (exp.) jpπ jdπ lmin log10 T1/2 UF M
log10 T1/2 α transition Qα (exp.) jpπ jdπ lmin log10 T1/2 UF M
log10 T1/2
282 Rg→ 278 Mt
111 109 9.640 − − 0 1.982 1.283 277 Cn→ 273 Dsm
112 110 11.420 3/2+ # 3/2+ # 0 -3.071 -3.447
281 Cn→ 277 Ds
112 110 10.450 3/2+ # 11/2+ # 4 -0.745 -0.040 285 Cn→ 281 Ds
112 110 9.320 5/2+ # 3/2+ # 2 1.505 2.549
278 Nh→ 274 Rg 11.850 − − 0 -2.638 -3.648 283 Nh→ 279 Rg 10.510 − − 0 -0.796 -0.843
113 111 113 111
284 Nh→ 280 Rg 10.280 − − 0 -0.032 0.239 285 Nh→ 281 Rg 10.010 − − 0 0.519 0.551
113 111 113 111
286 Nh→ 282 Rg
113 111 9.790 − − 0 0.845 1.673 285 Fl→ 281 Cn
114 112 10.560 − 3/2+ # 0 -0.678 -0.578
286 Fl→ 282 Cn 0+ 0+ 287 Fl→ 283 Cn − −
8

114 112 10.370 0 -0.456 -0.511 114 112 10.160 0 -0.283 0.542
288 Fl→ 284 Cn
114 112 10.072 0+ 0+ 0 -0.125 0.340 289 Fl→ 285 Cn
114 112 9.970 5/2+ # 5/2+ # 0 0.380 1.122
287 Mc→ 283 Ed 10.760 − − 0 -1.022 -0.705 288 Mc→ 284 Ed 10.750 − − 0 -0.770 -0.220
115 113 115 113
289 Mc→ 285 Ed 10.510 − − 0 -0.509 -0.011 290 Fl→ 286 Ed 10.450 − − 0 -0.387 0.633
115 113 115 113
290 Lv→ 286 Fl
116 114 11.000 0+ 0+ 0 -2.097 -1.356 291 Lv→ 287 Fl
116 114 10.890 − − 0 -1.553 -0.602
292 Lv→ 288 Fl 10.774 0+ 0+ 0 -1.620 -0.734 293 Lv→ 289 Fl 10.680 − 5/2+ # 0 -1.097 0.007

Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

116 114 116 114
293 Ts→ 289 Ef 11.290 − − 0 -1.678 -1.200 294 Ts→ 290 Ef 11.200 − − 0 -1.155 -0.490
117 115 117 115
294 Ts→ 290 Lv
118 116 11.840 0+ 0+ 0 -2.939 -2.580
 H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al.
Table 3
The predicted α decay half-lives of SHN with Z=119-120 using UFM with considering the preformation factor.
W S2016+
α transition jpπ jdπ lmin Qα (F RDM2012) Qα (W S4) Qα (W S2016+) F RDM
log10 T1/2 W S4
log10 T1/2 log10 T1/2
284 119→ 280 Ts − − 0 13.670 13.563 14.569 -11.174 -10.973 -12.764
165 163
285 119→ 281 Ts
166 164 1/2− 3/2− 2 14.060 13.598 14.067 -12.301 -11.455 -12.313
286 119→ 282 Ts − − 0 13.750 13.415 13.794 -10.331 -9.701 -10.411
167 165
287 119→ 283 Ts
168 166 1/2− 3/2− 2 13.370 13.255 13.261 -10.032 -9.809 -9.820
288 119→ 284 Ts − − 0 13.570 13.204 12.959 -9.098 -8.394 -7.905
169 167
289 119→ 285 Ts
170 168 1/2− 3/2− 2 13.470 13.131 12.952 -9.328 -8.668 -8.309
290 119→ 286 Ts − − 0 13.310 13.039 12.741 -7.792 -7.257 -6.647
171 169
291 119→ 287 Ts
172 170 1/2− 3/2− 2 13.240 13.020 12.762 -8.073 -7.635 -7.107
292 119→ 288 Ts − − 0 13.080 12.874 12.747 -6.612 -6.195 -5.932
173 171
293 119→ 289 Ts
174 172 1/2− 3/2− 2 12.920 12.687 12.697 -6.703 -6.221 -6.242
294 119→ 290 Ts − − 0 12.850 12.699 12.531 -5.497 -5.183 -4.827
175 173
1/2− 3/2−
9

295 119→ 291 Ts 2 12.940 12.731 12.617 -6.090 -5.659 -5.419

176 174
296 119→ 292 Ts − − 0 12.980 12.449 12.433 -5.185 -4.074 -4.039
177 175
297 119→ 293 Ts
178 176 1/2− 3/2− 2 12.900 12.398 12.553 -5.426 -4.366 -4.701
298 119→ 294 Ts − − 0 13.090 12.688 12.618 -4.897 -4.074 -3.926
179 177
299 119→ 295 Ts
180 178 1/2− 3/2− 2 13.080 12.739 12.596 -5.274 -4.576 -4.274
300 119→ 296 Ts − −

Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

181 179 0 13.030 12.547 12.482 -4.330 -3.328 -3.189
301 119→ 297 Ts
182 180 3/2− 3/2− 0 13.080 12.402 12.392 -4.916 -3.500 -3.478
302 119→ 298 Ts − − 0 13.050 12.402 12.319 -3.983 -2.627 -2.444
183 181
303 119→ 299 Ts
184 182 3/2− 1/2− 2 13.110 12.393 12.233 -4.481 -2.984 -2.630
304 119→ 300 Ts − − 0 13.860 12.906 13.057 -5.203 -3.357 -3.663
185 183
305 119→ 301 Ts
186 184 3/2− 1/2− 2 13.860 13.402 12.870 -5.571 -4.710 -3.649
306 119→ 302 Ts − − 0 13.930 13.177 12.831 -5.048 -3.619 -2.920
187 185
307 119→ 303 Ts
188 186 1/2− 1/2− 0 13.390 12.757 12.602 -4.505 -3.234 -2.908
308 119→ 304 Ts − − 0 12.160 12.037 12.465 -1.235 -0.956 -1.907
189 187
(continued on next page)
 H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al.
Table 3 (continued)
W S2016+
α transition jpπ jdπ lmin Qα (F RDM2012) Qα (W S4) Qα (W S2016+) F RDM
log10 T1/2 W S4
log10 T1/2 log10 T1/2
309 119→ 305 Ts
190 188 5/2+ 1/2− 3 11.700 11.346 11.581 -0.386 0.481 -0.100
310 119→ 306 Ts − − 0 10.670 10.859 10.938 2.668 2.154 1.942
191 189
311 119→ 307 Ts
192 190 5/2+ 5/2+ 0 10.320 10.757 10.285 3.207 1.979 3.309
312 119→ 308 Ts − − 0 9.900 10.561 11.793 5.074 3.128 -0.038
193 191
313 119→ 309 Ts
194 192 5/2+ 9/2+ 2 10.060 9.370 10.227 4.281 6.483 3.782
314 119→ 310 Ts − − 0 9.550 8.974 11.192 6.311 8.289 1.560
195 193
315 119→ 311 Ts
196 194 1/2+ 1/2− 1 9.360 8.651 11.021 6.562 9.106 1.621
287 120→ 283 Og
167 165 7/2+ 1/2+ 4 13.960 13.835 14.100 -4.967 -4.734 -5.224
288 120→ 284 Og
168 166 0+ 0+ 0 13.850 13.705 13.719 -6.094 -5.818 -5.845
289 120→ 285 Og
169 167 1/2+ 1/2+ 0 13.750 13.692 13.355 -5.530 -5.420 -4.763
290 120→ 286 Og
170 168 0+ 0+ 0 13.750 13.676 13.440 -5.914 -5.772 -5.313
291 120→ 287 Og
171 169 3/2+ 1/2+ 2 13.870 13.483 13.327 -5.452 -4.711 -4.402
10

292 120→ 288 Og

172 170 0+ 0+ 0 13.780 13.441 13.222 -5.965 -5.310 -4.874
293 120→ 289 Og
173 171 5/2+ 3/2+ 2 13.650 13.374 13.224 -5.006 -4.468 -4.168
294 120→ 290 Og
174 172 0+ 0+ 0 13.490 13.215 13.232 -5.384 -4.837 -4.872
295 120→ 291 Og
175 173 1/2+ 5/2+ 2 13.460 13.245 13.166 -4.592 -4.166 -4.008
296 120→ 292 Og
176 174 0+ 0+ 0 13.590 13.316 13.162 -5.538 -5.000 -4.690
297 120→ 293 Og 1/2+ 1/2+

Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

177 175 0 13.650 13.117 13.057 -5.197 -4.142 -4.018
298 120→ 294 Og
178 176 0+ 0+ 0 13.240 12.981 13.089 -4.789 -4.261 -4.483
299 120→ 295 Og
179 177 1/2+ 1/2+ 0 13.730 13.234 13.102 -5.269 -4.298 -4.030
300 120→ 296 Og
180 178 0+ 0+ 0 13.700 13.294 13.050 -5.613 -4.819 -4.326
301 120→ 297 Og
181 179 3/2+ 1/2+ 2 13.620 13.040 12.904 -4.655 -3.503 -3.221
302 120→ 298 Og
182 180 0+ 0+ 0 13.550 12.866 12.814 -5.224 -3.845 -3.735
303 120→ 299 Og
183 181 1/2+ 3/2+ 2 13.510 12.787 12.739 -4.318 -2.853 -2.752
304 120→ 300 Og
184 182 0+ 0+ 0 13.550 12.740 12.661 -5.103 -3.459 -3.290
305 120→ 301 Og
185 183 3/2+ 1/2+ 2 14.260 13.256 13.449 -6.426 -4.521 -4.903
 H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al.
Table 3 (continued)
W S2016+
α transition jpπ jdπ lmin Qα (F RDM2012) Qα (W S4) Qα (W S2016+) F RDM
log10 T1/2 W S4
log10 T1/2 log10 T1/2
306 120→ 302 Og
186 184 0+ 0+ 0 14.280 13.765 13.287 -7.314 -6.360 -5.430
307 120→ 303 Og
187 185 1/2+ 7/2+ 4 13.620 13.501 13.252 -4.639 -4.410 -3.918
308 120→ 304 Og
188 186 0+ 0+ 0 12.960 12.945 13.068 -4.882 -4.851 -5.103
309 120→ 305 Og
189 187 5/2+ 5/2+ 0 11.770 12.139 12.115 -1.789 -2.651 -2.597
0+ 0+
11

310 120→ 306 Og 0 11.290 11.478 11.612 -1.156 -1.629 -1.959

190 188
311 120→ 307 Og
191 189 7/2+ 5/2+ 2 10.760 11.175 11.279 1.018 -0.089 -0.355
312 120→ 308 Og
192 190 0+ 0+ 0 10.710 11.196 10.790 0.292 -1.006 0.072
313 120→ 309 Og
193 191 9/2+ 7/2+ 2 10.500 11.005 13.133 1.673 0.285 -4.637
314 120→ 310 Og
194 192 0+ 0+ 0 10.330 10.739 11.810 1.294 0.135 -2.603
315 120→ 311 Og 9/2+ 9/2+ 0 10.160 9.414 13.468 2.299 4.670 -5.671

Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

195 193
316 120→ 312 Og
196 194 0+ 0+ 0 9.940 9.173 11.311 2.407 4.936 -1.438
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

Fig. 2. The predicted α decay half-lives of SHN Z=119-120 isotopes using UFM with considering the preformation
factor.

parity at the nuclear ground state by P. Möller [72]. The spin and parity of the doubly odd SHN
are difficult to determine, because the coupling of both odd proton and neutron would lead to
various possible spin and parity state. So we assume that the minimum angular momentum taken
away by α particle is zero for double odd nucleus. The fifth to seventh columns are the decay
energy Qα from the theoretical FRDM2012, WS4, and WS2016+RBFs mass table, respectively.
The eighth to tenth are the predictions by UFM with consideration of the preformation factor
corresponding to each mass table. We can clearly see that the α decay half-life values of the
Z = 119 and Z = 120 isotopes vary from 10−11 to 109 s and 10−7 to 105 s, respectively. Most
of them can be detected experimentally if they can be synthesized in a laboratory. In addition,
we plot the α decay energy and the logarithmic α decay half-lives of the calculated data as a
function of the neutron number from three kinds of the mass table in Figs. 2(a)-(d). Figs. 2(a)
and (b) show the α decay energy and the logarithmic α decay half-lives of the calculated data for
Z = 119 isotopes as a function of the neutron number in the range of 165  N  196. Figs. 2(c)
and (d) show the same functions for Z = 120 isotopes in the range of 167  N  196. We find
that the trends of the calculated half-lives from three kinds of mass table are basically the same
for N < 192, and the FRDM2012 half-lives are slightly smaller than WS4 and WS2016+RBFs
ones. But when N > 192, the calculated results from WS2016+RBFs have large fluctuations, the
trends of changes are basically the same between FRDM2012 and WS4 with neutron number
increasing. Furthermore, we can see that when neutron number across N = 184, the α decay
energy increases more than 1 MeV, and the α decay half-lives decrease rapidly and reduce by
more than 2 orders of magnitude for Z = 119 as well as Z = 120. This phenomenon reflects
strong shell effects, implying that N=184 is a neutron magic number. The predictions of the α
decay half-lives of the SHN of Z = 119 and 120 isotopes by using the UFM with considering

12
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

the preformation factor can provide reliable information for synthesizing new SHN when the
theoretical Qα values, the spin and parity are accurate enough. These predictions are based on the
macroscopic-microscopic mass models. In the next work, we will take into account the calculated
results affected by the microscopic mass models [73,74].

4. Summary

In this work, we proposed a new α preformation factor formula based on the previous for-
mula of He et al., and extracted α preformation factors of 465 nuclei with Z = 62 − 103 in the
framework of UFM. The coefficients of the preformation factor formula were obtained by fitting
the extracted α preformation factors. The RMS deviation of the total 456 nuclei between the
extracted preformation factors and the calculated values from the formula is 0.388. This result
shows that the preformation factor formula can describe the α particle preformation probability
before being emitted in the decay process reliably. Then we extended the applications of pre-
formation factor to SHN regions, and used the UFM method with considering the preformation
factor to calculate the α decay half-lives of SHN in the range of 104  Z  118, the calculations
are in good agreement with the experiments demonstrating that the UFM taking into account the
preformation factor is a useful tool to investigate the α decay half-lives of SHN. In this way,
the predictions of α decay half-lives for SHN Z = 119, 120 isotopes are made by UFM with
considering the α preformation factor. The predictions can provide references for experiments of
synthesizing new SHN if the mass tables are accurate enough.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Haitao Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft. Zhongxia

Zhao: Investigation, Validation. Xiaopan Li: Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Yan
Cai: Data curation, Resources. Xiaojun Bao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writ-
ing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal rela-
tionships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. G. Deng and Y. He for valuable discussions. This work is supported
by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants 11705055, 11903028), Hunan Provincial
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 2018JJ3324) and the Fundamental Research Plan
of Yunnan Province (Grant 2017FD147).

References

[1] U. Mosel, W. Greiner, Z. Phys. 222 (1969) 261.

[2] S.G. Nilsson, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 131 (1969) 1.
[3] S. Cwiok, J. Dobaczewski, P.H. Heenen, P. Magierski, W. Nazarewicz, Nucl. Phys. A 611 (1996) 211–246.
[4] J. Meng, H. Toki, S.G. Zhou, S.Q. Zhang, W.H. Long, L.S. Geng, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57 (2006) 470–563.
[5] J.J. Li, W.H. Long, J. Margueron, N.V. Giai, Phys. Lett. B 732 (2014) 169–173.

13
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

[6] P.H. Chen, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (2017) 95.

[7] X.J. Bao, Chin. Phys. C 43 (2019) 054105.
[8] S. Hofmann, G. Münzenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72 (2000) 733–767.
[9] G. Münzenberg, K. Morita, Nucl. Phys. A 944 (2015) 3–4.
[10] Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78 (2015) 036301.
[11] Y.T. Oganessian, A. Sobiczewski, G.M. Ter-Akopian, Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 023003.
[12] S.A. Giuliani, Z. Matheson, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 (2019) 011001.
[13] P.E. Hodgson, E. Batak, Phys. Rep. 374 (2003) 1.
[14] R. Lovas, R. Liotta, A. Insolia, K. Varga, D. Delion, Phys. Rep. 294 (1998) 265.
[15] W. Seif, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 034302.
[16] D. Delion, S. Peltonen, J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 014315.
[17] G. Gamov, Z. Phys. 51 (1928) 204.
[18] R.W. Gurney, E.U. Condon, Nature 122 (1928) 439.
[19] D.D. Ni, Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 024315.
[20] C. Xu, Z.Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 014304.
[21] C. Xu, Z.Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 041301(R).
[22] G. Royer, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 26 (2000) 1149.
[23] H. Zhang, W. Zuo, J. Li, G. Royer, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 017304.
[24] X.J. Bao, H.F. Zhang, H.F. Zhang, G. Royer, J.Q. Li, Nucl. Phys. A 921 (2014) 85–95.
[25] X.J. Bao, H.F. Zhang, B.S. Hu, G. Royer, J.Q. Li, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 39 (2012) 095103.
[26] X.J. Bao, H.F. Zhang, G. Royer, J.Q. Li, Nucl. Phys. A 906 (2013) 1–13.
[27] X.D. Sun, J.G. Deng, D. Xiang, P. Guo, X.H. Li, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 044303.
[28] X.D. Sun, C. Duan, J.G. Deng, P. Guo, X.H. Li, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 014319.
[29] J.G. Deng, J.C. Zhao, D. Xiang, X.H. Li, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 024318.
[30] J.M. Dong, W. Zuo, J.Z. Gu, Y.Z. Wang, B.B. Peng, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 064309.
[31] X.J. Bao, S.Q. Guo, H.F. Zhang, Y.Z. Xing, J.M. Dong, J.Q. Li, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 42 (2015) 085101.
[32] J.C. Pei, F.R. Xu, Z.J. Lin, E.G. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 044326.
[33] W.H. Long, J. Meng, S.G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 65 (2002) 047306.
[34] D.N. Poenaru, W. Greiner, Phys. Scr. 44 (1991) 427.
[35] D.N. Poenaru, W. Greiner, E. Hourani, Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 594.
[36] B. Buck, A.C. Merchant, S.M. Perez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2975.
[37] C. Xu, Z. Ren, Nucl. Phys. A 760 (2005) 303.
[38] S.M.S. Ahmed, Nucl. Phys. A 962 (2017) 103.
[39] D. Deng, Z. Ren, D. Ni, et al., J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 42 (2015) 075106.
[40] N.A.M. Alsaif, S. Radiman, S.M.S. Ahmed, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 44 (2017) 105103.
[41] D.S. Delion, R.J. Liotta, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 041302.
[42] R.I. Betan, W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 034338.
[43] S. Kumar, M. Balasubramaniam, R.K. Gupta, et al., J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 29 (2003) 625.
[44] G.L. Zhang, X.Y. Le, H.Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 064325.
[45] T.T. Ibrahim, S.M. Wyngaardt, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 41 (2014) 055111.
[46] Y. Qian, Z. Ren, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 43 (2016) 065102.
[47] K. Varga, R.G. Lovas, R.J. Liotta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 37.
[48] K. Wei, H.F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 034318.
[49] W.M. Seif, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 40 (2013) 105102.
[50] W.M. Seif, M.M. Botros, A.I. Refaie, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 044302.
[51] S.Q. Guo, X.J. Bao, Y. Gao, J.Q. Li, H.F. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. A 934 (2015) 110.
[52] W.M. Seif, M. Shalaby, M.F. Alrakshy, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 064608.
[53] X.D. Sun, P. Guo, X.H. Li, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 034316.
[54] J.G. Deng, J.C. Zhao, P.C. Chu, et al., Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 044322.
[55] G. Gangopadhyay, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 36 (2009) 095105.
[56] Y. He, X. Yu, H.F. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 1.
[57] H.F. Zhang, G. Royer, Y.J. Wang, J.M. Dong, W. Zuo, J.Q. Li, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 057301.
[58] S.G. Zhou, J. Meng, P. Ring, E.G. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 011301(R).
[59] L.L. Li, J. Meng, P. Ring, E.G. Zhao, S.G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 024312.
[60] J. Meng, S.G. Zhou, J. Phys. G 42 (2015) 093101.
[61] K.Y. Zhang, D.Y. Wang, S.Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 034312.

14
H. Yang, Z. Zhao, X. Li et al. Nuclear Physics A 1014 (2021) 122250

[62] W. Zhang, J. Meng, S.Q. Zhang, L.S. Geng, H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. A 753 (2005) 106.
[63] M. Balasubramaniam, N. Arunachalam, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 014603.
[64] V.Y. Denison, A.A. Khudenko, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 054614.
[65] G. Audi, F.G. Kondev, M. Wang, et al., Chin. Phys. C 41 (2017) 030001.
[66] M. Wang, G. Audi, F.G. Kondev, et al., Chin. Phys. C 41 (2017) 030003.
[67] J.G. Deng, H.F. Zhang, G. Royer, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 034307.
[68] T.L. Zhao, X.J. Bao, S.Q. Guo, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 45 (2018) 025106.
[69] P. Möller, A.J. Sierka, T. Ichikawa, H. Sagawa, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 109 (2016) 1.
[70] N. Wang, M. Liu, X. Wu, J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 215.
[71] N.N. Ma, H.F. Zhang, X.J. Bao, H.F. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 43 (2019) 044105.
[72] https://t2.lanl.gov/nis/data/astro/molnix96/spidat.html.
[73] K.Y. Zhang, M.K. Cheoun, Y.B. Choi, et al., Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 024314.
[74] X.W. Xia, Y. Lim, P.W. Zhao, et al., At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 1 (2018) 121–122.

15