nat

Measurement of alpha-induced reaction cross-sections on Zn with detailed

covariance analysis
Mahesh Choudhary,∗ A. Gandhi, Aman Sharma, Namrata Singh, and A. Kumar†
Department of Physics, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India

S. Dasgupta and J. Datta

Analytical Chemistry Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata-700064, India
(Dated: June 8, 2022)
The production cross-section of 68 Ge, 69 Ge, 65 Zn and 67 Ga radioisotopes from alpha induced
nuclear reaction with nat Zn have been measured using stacked foil activation technique followed by
the off-line γ-ray spectroscopy in the incident alpha energy range 14.47-37 MeV. In this study we have
presented cross-sections for nat Zn(α,x)68 Ge, nat Zn(α,x)69 Ge, nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn and nat Zn(α,x)67 Ga
arXiv:2206.03140v1 [nucl-ex] 7 Jun 2022

reactions. The obtained nuclear reaction cross-sections are compared with previous experimental
data available in the EXFOR data library and theoretical results, calculated using TALYS nuclear
reaction code. We have also performed the detailed uncertainty analysis for these nuclear reactions
and their respective covariance metrics are presented. Since α-induced reactions are important
in astrophysics, nuclear medicine, and improving the nuclear reaction codes so needful corrections
related to the coincidence summing factor and the geometric factor have been considered during the
data analysis in the present study.

I. INTRODUCTION astrophysics, nuclear medicine, and developing nuclear

The data on alpha induced nuclear reaction cross-
sections is important for a variety of technological
applications including nuclear reaction investigations
and the production of medicinal radionuclides [1, 2].
Radioisotopes are being used as nuclear medicines for a
long time and 68 Ga is one of such radioisotopes used for
PET (Positron Emission Tomography). The production
of 68 Ga has become easier with the increasing number of
medical cyclotrons in recent times. However, 68 Ga has
a short half-life of 67.71 minutes and emits positrons
with the positron branching ratio 89 % accompanied by
1077.34 keV gamma ray. Transport of radioisotopes, like
68
Ga, becomes difficult due to their short half-lives. So
using 68 Ge as a parent to 68 Ga is a good option, as it
decays to 68 Ga with 100 % electron capture along with
having a relatively longer half-life of 270.95 days. Hence
68
Ga/ 68 Ge generator is an ideal candidate to be used
in distant places from the manufacturing site. There
are several reactions to produce 68 Ge like nat Zn(α,x),
66
Zn(α,2n) etc.
Another prominent medical radioisotope is the 67 Ga
which is commonly used in nuclear medicine for various
types of human tumors and inflammatory lesions. The
67
Ga radioisotope has a half-life of 3.26 days and emits
gamma-ray of 300.22 keV. In this study, alpha particles
were bombarded on a natural zinc target with an energy
of 37 MeV to produce the above mentioned medical ra-
dioisotopes. Since α-induced reactions are significant in
reaction codes, precisely estimating the degree of uncer-
tainty propagation from the measured nuclear reaction
cross-section data of these nuclear reactions is an im-
portant component. Although the EXFOR data library
contains experimental data for these nuclear reactions,
none of the data has a complete covariance analysis.
Therefore, covariance analysis of these nuclear reactions
in detail is important. Covariance analysis is a method
for estimating the uncertainty in a measured quantity
by taking cross correlations into different attributes [3–
6]. In the present work, we have documented detailed
covariance analysis of nuclear reactions nat Zn(α,x)68 Ge,
nat
Zn(α,x)69 Ge, nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn and nat Zn(α,x)67 Ga, by
taking the micro correlations between different attributes
like decay constant, incident flux, the efficiency of HPGe
detector, γ-ray counts, γ-ray intensity and particle num-
ber density. We have used TALYS nuclear code for the
theoretical calculation of nuclear reaction cross-section.
The presented excitation functions of these nuclear reac-
tions are compared with the existing experimental data
available in the EXFOR data library, as well as the the-
oretical calculation [7–10].
The following six components make up the present study,
Section II contains information on the experimental tech-
nique and setup, section III covers information on the
detector’s efficiency calibration, section IV provides in-
formation on covariance analysis and theoretical calcula-
tions, section V takes care of results and discussion, and
section VI concludes the manuscript.

II. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

∗ maheshchoudhary921@gmail.com The experiment was carried out at Variable Energy

† ajaytyagi@bhu.ac.in Cyclotron Center (VECC), Kolkata, India using the K-
 2

130 cyclotron. In this experiment, Ionizing helium was

used to generate the alpha particles.

We have used the stacked foil activation technique [11–

14] followed by the off-line γ-ray spectroscopy to deter-
mine the nuclear reaction cross-sections of alpha induced
reactions on nat Zn in the energy range from the threshold
energy of reactions up to 37 MeV. In the stacked foil ac-
tivation technique, a stack of several thin foils was irradi- FIG. 2. The Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
ated by an integrated particle beam along with a monitor
foil and after irradiation, the irradiated foils were placed
in front of the detector for measurement of the γ-rays
coming from the produced radionuclide. A catcher foil is 100,000 1106.77 keV 1115.54 keV (A)

attached to each taget foil to record the recoil radioactive 1077.34 keV
10,000
from the target foil. The catcher foil should not produce

Counts
any radioactive in the particular energy range, and to 1,000

reduce gamma attenuation it should has low Z-material.

In this experiment, nat Zn (10 x 10 mm2 ), nat Al (10 x 10 100

mm2 ) and nat Ti (10 x 10 mm2 ) thin matallic foils were 1,060 1,080 1,100 1,120 1,140 1,160

used. The nat Zn foil was used as target foil, while the
nat (B)
Al foil was used as catcher and energy degrader foil. 100,000
300.22 keV

The nat Ti foil was used as monitor foil and the nucler
reaction nat Ti(α,x)51 Cr was used to calculate incident
flux on the target foils. The thickness of thin matallic Counts
10,000

foils of nat Zn , nat Al and nat Ti were 7.85 mg/cm2 , 13.5

mg/cm2 and 1.80 mg/cm2 respectively. In this work, two 1,000

different stacks were irradiated to cover the entire excita- 280 290 300
Eγ (keV)
310 320

tion function in the incident alpha energy range from the

threshold energy up to 37 MeV. We attached an nat Al
foil to a nat Zn foil in one set of stacks and each stack
consisted of five such sets. In each stack, we placed one
monitor foil (nat Ti) before every target foil (nat Zn). The
details regarding irradiation time, incident energy of al-
pha particle and beam current for both stacks are given
in Table I. A systematic arrangement of the stacked foils
is shown in Fig. 1. In the present experiment two col-
limator of diameter 8 mm were used as shown in Fig.
2 and also a Faraday Cup used for current measurement
placed after the samples. We have used the Stopping and
Range of Ions in Matter (SRIM) code to determine en-
ergy loss in a particular foil [15, 16]. This code provides
us the information about energy loss of incident ions and
range inside the matter.
FIG. 1. The schematic presentation of the monitor-target-
catcher foil arrangement.
FIG. 3. A γ-ray spectrum of the irradiated target foil at
incident alpha energy 36.32 MeV. (a): for radionuclides 68 Ge
(1077.34 keV), 69 Ge (1106.77 keV) and 65 Zn (1115.54 keV)
(b): for radionuclide 67 Ga (300.22 keV)
III. GAMMA-RAY SPECTROMETRY
After irradiation, the activated samples were taken
from the experiment hall to the counting room to de-
tect the gamma-ray activity of the samples. After the
target holder was safely opened, the monitor foils and
the target foils were separated. For gamma-ray activ-
ity counting, both the target and the respective catcher
foils were wrapped in small polythene bags and placed
on perspex plates. Depending on the half life of the pro-
duced radionuclide, counting was started after various
cooling intervals from the end of beam bombarding. In
the present study, we have used high purity germanium
detector (HPGe) to detect the gamma-ray activity of the
samples. A GENIE 2000 software was used for data anal-
ysis. The GENIE 2000 is Windows-based software, made
by Canberra with interactive graphical interface tools, to
determine the peak area counts of a particular gamma by
defining specified regions of interest in γ-ray spectra. The
efficiency of the HPGe detector for different gamma ener-
gies was calculated by using a 152 Eu point source which
has initial activity A0 = 3.908×104 ± 197.68 Bq reported
on 17 May 1982. The standard 152 Eu point source has
 3

TABLE I. Irradiation condition and energy range for both stacks in the experiment.

Stack Number Incident Energy Energy Range Irradiation Time Current

(MeV) (MeV) (hr) (nA)

STK 1 37 37-22.23 7 150

STK 2 32 32-14.47 7 150

TABLE II. The value of the detector efficiency (ε) curve’s fitting parameters, as well as their uncertainty.

Parameters Value Uncertainty

εc 6.72×10−5 4.22×10−6
ε0 5.10×10−4 1.75×10−5
E0 (keV) 389.15 22.36

152
a half-life of T1/2 = 13.517 ± 0.009 years. The following Eu was a point source, the efficiency of the point
equation is used to calculate the detection efficiency of source geometry (p ) has to be transferred to the effi-
the HPGe detector for a source detector distance of 62.5 ciency of the sample geometry (). The Monte Carlo
mm [17]: simulation code EFFTRAN [18, 19] was used to transfer
the efficiency from the point source geometry (p ) to the
sample geometry () and calculate the correction factor
CKc
εp = (1) (KC ) of the coincidence summing effect.
A0 Iγ ∆te−λt The calculated efficiency value for sample source geom-
etry () and point source geometry (p ) placed at 62.5
In the above equation, p represents the efficiency for
mm from the detector absorber are given in Table III
the point source, λ is the decay constant of 152 Eu point
with the correction factor (KC ). To calculate the effi-
source, A0 represents the known activity of a standard
152 ciency of a particular γ-ray of the product radionuclide,
Eu point source, C denotes the total number of counts
we have used equation 2 which is a fitting function of in-
taken in ∆t = 10000 seconds for γ-ray energy with ab-
terpolating the point-wise efficiencies (Eγ ) of the γ-ray
solute intensity (Iγ ), KC denotes the summing correc-
energy (Eγ ) of the standard source 152 Eu [17, 20].
tion factor, and t denotes the cooling time for the point
source. ε(Eγ ) = εo exp(−Eγ /E0 ) + εc (2)
The samples were of a finite area and the standard source
In the above equation εo , εc , and E0 are the fitting
parameters of the measured detection efficiencies (ε) of
standard point 152 Eu. The value of the curve fitting pa-
0 .0 0 0 4 7 6
rameters mentioned in equation 2 are given in Table II.
E ffic ie n c y P o in t
0 .0 0 0 4 0 8
F ittin g c u r v e
IV. DATA ANALYSIS
0 .0 0 0 3 4 0

A. Estimation of the reaction cross-section

E ffic ie n c y (e )

0 .0 0 0 2 7 2

0 .0 0 0 2 0 4
In the present study, the nuclear reaction cross-sections
were computed using the following activation formula;
0 .0 0 0 1 3 6

0 .0 0 0 0 6 8
Cγ λ
σ= (3)
ε(Eγ )Iγ φNt e−λtc (1 − e−λtirr )(1 − e−λtm )
0 2 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 6 0 0

(k e V )
Here Cγ is the peak area counts of a gamma-ray, (Iγ )
g
E
represents the gamma-ray intensity, ε(Eγ ) denotes the
efficiency of the detector, φ denotes the incident flux, λ
FIG. 4. Efficiency curve of HPGE detector for a distance of represents the decay constant, Nt ((cm−2 )) represents
62.5 mm between source and detector absorber. the particle number density in the target. In this equa-
tion, tirr (s) is the irradiation time of the target, tc (s)
 4

TABLE III. The HPGe detector’s efficiency for both sample (ε) and point source (εp ) geometries at different γ-ray energies
with their γ-ray intensities and coincidence summing correction factor (Kc ).
Eγ (keV) Iγ (%) Counts(C) Kc εp (%) ε (%)
121.78 28.53 ± 0.16 376755 ± 640 1.02 0.138 0.045 ± 0.78
244.69 7.55 ± 0.04 70512 ± 296 1.03 0.098 0.034 ± 0.85
344.27 26.59 ± 0.2 197352 ± 454 1.02 0.077 0.027 ± 0.94
411.11 2.24 ± 0.01 13571 ± 137 1.03 0.064 0.022 ± 1.27
778.9 12.93 ± 0.08 48579 ± 288 1.02 0.039 0.014 ± 1.0
964.05 14.51 ± 0.07 43529 ± 231 1.01 0.031 0.011 ± 0.88
1085.83 10.11 ± 0.05 27617 ± 177 0.99 0.028 0.009 ± 0.96
1112.94 13.67 ± 0.08 37596 ± 203 1.0 0.028 0.01 ± 0.94
1408.01 20.87 ± 0.09 44423 ± 218 1.0 0.021 0.007 ± 0.83

nat
Nuclear reactions and other parameters of the radionuclides generated by Zn(α,x) reactions that were investigated.

Radionuclide Half-life Decay mode Eγ Iγ Reaction Q-value

(t1/2 ) (%) (keV) (%) (MeV)
65
Zn 243.93 ± 0.09 Days ec + β + (100) 1115.54 50.04 ± 0.1 64
Zn(α, He3 ) -12.59
64
Zn(α, n+2p) -20.31
64
Zn(α, p+d) -18.09
67 64
Ga 3.26 ± 0.0005 Days ec (100) 300.22 16.64 ± 0.12 Zn(α,p) -3.99
66
Zn(α,t) -14.55
66
Zn(α,2n+p) -23.03
67
Zn(α,3n+p) -30.08
68 64
Ge 270.93 ± 0.13 Days ec (100) - - Zn(α,γ) 3.39
66
Zn(α,2n) -15.64
67
Zn(α,3n) -22.69
68
Zn(α,4n) -32.88
68
Ga 67.71 ± 0.08 min ec + β + (100) 1077.34 3.22 ± 0.03 68
Ge (ec)
69
Ge 39.05 ± 0.1 h ec + β + (100) 1106.77 36.0 ± 0.4 66
Zn(α,n) -7.44
67
Zn(α,2n) -14.49
68
Zn(α,3n) -24.69

represents the cooling time of the irradiated target and

tm (s) is the counting time of the sample. To determine
the uncertainty of the measured nuclear reaction cross-
section, the uncertainty in the parameters contributing
to the cross-section is taken into account such as detector
efficiency ε(Eγ ), gamma-ray intensity (Iγ ), the particle
number density in target (Nt ), peak area counts (Cγ ),
decay constant (λ) and incident flux (φ).
B. Covariance Analysis
The cross-correlation between several measured values
can be used to explain the detailed uncertainty in covari-
ance analysis. The covariance matrix (Iσ ) of the cross-
section can be represented as [21, 22];
Iσ = Sx Cx SxT (4)
In the above equation, Iσ represents the covariance ma-
trix of calculated nuclear reaction cross-sections of order
r × r and the Cx matrix has order m × m which rep-
resents the semi covariance matrix of different variables
in the cross-section formula (equation 3) i.e. peak area
counts (Cγ ), detector efficiency ε(Eγ ), flux (φ), decay
constant (λ), gamma-ray intensity (Iγ ), particle number
density in the target (Nt ). Here, Sx represents the sen-
sitivity matrix with the corresponding element (j, k);
∂σj
Sxjk = ; (j = 1, 2, 3, ...r; k = 1, 2, 3, ...m) (5)
∂xk
 5

TABLE V. The value of correlation for different variables.

Variables Correlation
Counts (C) 0
Flux (φ) 0
γ-ray Intensity (Iγ ) 1
Decay Constant (λ) 1
Detector Efficiency (Eγ ) 1
Number Density (Nt ) 1

TABLE VI. The percentage uncertainty in efficiency of detector (∆), counts (∆Cγ ), decay constant (∆λ) and gamma-ray
intensity (∆Iγ ).

Reactions ∆ (%)) ∆Cγ (%) ∆λ (%) ∆Iγ (%)

nat
Zn(α,x)65 Zn 1.55 3-5 0.04 0.19
nat
Zn(α,x)68 Ge 1.52 4-6 0.005 0.93
nat 69
Zn(α,x) Ge 1.54 2-4 0.26 0.11
nat 67
Zn(α,x) Ga 1.56 1-4 0.02 0.72

Here, the total number of calculated cross-sections for a and nat Zn(α,x)67 Ga. The TALYS is a theoretical nu-
nuclear reaction is equal to r and the total number of clear reaction model code written in Fortran that is
variables in the cross-section formula is equal to m. If used to calculate different physical observables related
two variables xk and xl (k, l = 1, 2, 3,.....m) are required to nuclear reactions. This nuclear code is based on the
in the calculation of the cross-sections, then we can write Hauser–Fesbach statistical model and it contains distinct
covariance matrix (Cx ) of these variables as follows [23]; choices for level density and optical model parameters.
[24]. In this nuclear code, we can simulate the calcu-
lation of nuclear reactions for projectiles such as pho-
Cx (xk , xl ) = Cor(xk , xl )(∆xk ∆xl ) (6) tons, neutrons, protons, tritons, deuterons, 3 He- and
In the above equation, the term Cor(xk , xl ) represents alpha-particles and target nuclides with masses of 12
the correlation coefficient between two attributes xk , xl and larger in the 1 keV - 200 MeV energy range. In
and it has a value in the range of 0 to 1. If k= l then TALYS, there are six different level density models, of
the value of the term Cor(xk , xl ) is equal to 1, in which
case these two variables xk , xl are fully correlated. Ta-
ble V shows the correlations between the variables that
we consider in the present work. The uncertainty in the
incident flux (∆φ) was 4 % and uncertainty in particle
number density in target (∆Nt ) was 0.6 %. The percent-
age uncertainty in the detector’s efficiency (∆), counts
(∆C), decay constant (∆λ), and γ-ray intensity (∆Iγ )
are given in the table VI. However, we also took into ac-
count the beam energy spread caused by the foil thickness
and beam straggling. The energy spread on the front foil
facing the beam was estimated to be 0.05 %, but has in-
creased by the time it reaches to the final Zn foil. The
calculated spread in the incident alpha beam energy for
each energy points are given in table VII to X and shown
in Fig. 6 to 9.
C. Theoretical Calculations
We have used the statistical nuclear model code FIG. 5. The excitation function of the monitor nuclear reac-
TALYS for the theoretical calculations of the reac- tion nat Ti(α,x)51 Cr along with the recommended value.
tions nat Zn(α,x)68 Ge, nat Zn(α,x)69 Ge, nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn
 6

these six models, three for the phenomenological level
density model and three for the microscopic level density
model. The ldmodel-1 is related to the constant temper-
ature and the Fermi gas model, ldmodel-2 is related to
the back-shifted Fermi gas model, ldmodel-3 is related
to the generalized superfluid model, ldmodel-4 is from
the Gorley table (Skyrme Force), ldmodel-5 is from Hi-
laire’s combinatorial tables (Skyrem force) and ldmodel-
6 is from Hilaire’s combinatorial tables (temperature-
dependent HFB, Gogni force). Among these six level
density models ldmodel-1, 2, 3 are phenomenological
level density models and ldmodel-4, 5, 6 are microscopic
level density models [25–30]. In the present work we have
used all these six level density models and the results of
the theoretical calculations were compared with the cal-
culated nuclear reaction cross-sections.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In results and discussion, We have reported reaction
cross-sections, uncertainties and a covariance matrix of
nat
Zn(α,x) nuclear reactions in the energy range from
the corresponding threshold energy for each contribut-
ing reaction up to 37 MeV. In the present work, the
measured nuclear reaction cross-sections compared to the
theoretical prediction from the TALYS nuclear reaction
code and the existing experimental data from EXFOR.
We checked the veracity of this experimental setup by
comparing the measured cross-section of monitor nuclear
reaction nat Zn(α,x) with the recommended cross-section
value. The comparison of excitation function of monitor
nuclear reaction with recommended value is shown in Fig.
5. The flux for the monitor reaction cross-sections was
calculated using the Faraday cup current, whereas the
flux for the nat Ti(α,x)51 Cr nuclear reaction cross-sections
was calculated using the monitor nuclear reaction cross-
section. The details regarding nuclear reactions, half life,
decay data and Q-value of reactions are given in the Ta-
ble IV. The excitation function of a nuclear reactions are
shown in Fig. 6 to 9 and measured reaction cross-sections
with their covariance matrix are presented in Table from
VII to X.
65
A. Production cross-section of Zn
The measured nuclear reaction cross-section value for
the nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn nuclear reaction is presented in Fig.
6 along with the theoretical excitation function from the
TALYS nuclear model and previously calculated cross-
sections available on the EXFOR. The nuclear reaction
cross-sections for the nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn nuclear reaction
were calculated using a γ-ray with an energy of 1115.54
keV and intensity of 50.04 % that decays from the 65 Zn
radionuclide. There was a cooling period of around two
days for counting this γ-ray. The calculated experimental
results for nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn reaction are in good agreement
with existing reaction data given by A. Karpeles and Y.
Nagame et al. [31, 32], as shown in Fig. 6. The theoret-
ical results from ldmodel-4 (represented in cyan colour
by a solid line) are the most in accord with the calcu-
lated experimental data and follow the trend of the ex-
citation function of this nuclear reaction. The measured
reaction cross-sections along with their uncertainties and
covariance metrics for the reaction nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn are
presented in Table VII.

400 250

Y. Nagame (1978)
350 A.Karpeles (1669) M. Aikawa (2018)
Y.Nagame+ (1978) Present Work
Present work 200 ldmodel 6
ldmodel 5
300 ldmodel 6 ldmodel 4
ldmodel 5 ldmodel 3
ldmodel 4
Cross section (mb)

ldmodel 2
Cross section (mb)

250 ldmodel 3 ldmodel 1

ldmodel 2 150
ldmodel 1
200

100
150

100
50

50

0 0
15 20 25 30 35 40 15 20 25 30 35 40
Alpha Energy (MeV) Alpha Energy (MeV)

FIG. 6. The comparison between available experimental
results from EXFOR, theoretical results from TALYS and
the calculated excitation function for the nuclear reaction
nat
Zn(α,x)65 Zn.
FIG. 7. The comparison between available experimental
results from EXFOR, theoretical results from TALYS and
the calculated excitation function for the nuclear reaction
nat
Zn(α,x)68 Ge.
 7
nat
TABLE VII. The calculated reaction cross-section, uncertainty and covariance matrix of the nuclear reaction Zn(α,x)65 Zn.

Eα (MeV) Cross-section (mb) Covariance matrix

(σ ± 4σ)
19.47 ± 1.15 1.63 ± 0.26 0.070
22.23 ± 0.98 14.13 ± 2.25 0.519 5.07
23.75 ± 1.09 21.58 ± 3.43 0.792 6.887 11.774
26.18 ± 0.96 20.38 ± 3.21 0.749 6.515 9.933 10.326
27.68 ± 0.89 30.50 ± 4.76 1.121 9.744 14.857 14.055 22.653
29.75 ± 0.92 49.31 ± 7.68 1.810 15.738 23.997 22.701 33.954 58.755
31.25 ± 0.52 74.42 ± 11.57 2.731 23.749 36.211 34.255 51.235 82.755 133.9
33.15 ± 0.78 97.59 ± 15.14 3.574 31.074 47.38 44.821 67.038 108.28 163.39 229.13
36.32 ± 0.46 227.32 ± 35.35 8.344 72.552 110.62 104.65 156.52 252.82 381.49 499.16 1249.7

68
B. Production cross-section of Ge theoretical results from ldmodel-6 (represented in olive
colour by a solid line) are the most in accord with the
In the present work, the measured nuclear reaction calculated experimental data and follow the trend of the
cross-section value for the nat Zn(α,x)68 Ge nuclear re- exaction function of this nuclear reaction. The measured
action is presented in Fig. 7 along with the theoreti- reaction cross-sections along with their uncertainties and
cal excitation function from the TALYS nuclear model covariance metrics for the reaction nat Zn(α,x)68 Ge are
and previously calculated cross-sections available on the presented in Table VIII.
EXFOR. The nuclear reaction cross-sections for the
nat
Zn(α,x)68 Ge nuclear reaction were calculated using a
γ-ray with an energy of 1077.34 keV and intensity of C. Production cross-section of 69
Ge
3.22 % that decays from the 68 Ga radionuclide. The
radioisotope 68 Ge decays to 68 Ga with 100 % electron
In the present work, the measured nuclear reaction
capture. There was a cooling period of around two days
cross-section value for the nat Zn(α,x)69 Ge nuclear
for counting this γ-ray. The calculated experimental re-
reaction is presented in Fig. 8 along with the theoretical
sults for nat Zn(α,x)68 Ge reaction are in good agreement
excitation function from the TALYS nuclear model and
with existing reaction data given by Y. Nagame et al.
previously calculated cross-sections available on the
and M. Alkawa et al. [32, 33], as shown in Fig. 7. The
EXFOR. The nuclear reaction cross-sections for the

250
600
Y.Nagame+ (1978)
M.Aikawa+ (2018)
Present work Y.Nagame+ (1978)
ldmodel 6 M.Aikawa+ (2018)
200 ldmodel 5 500 Present work
ldmodel 4 ldmodel 6
ldmodel 3 ldmodel 5
ldmodel 2 ldmodel 4
ldmodel 3
Cross section (mb)

ldmodel 1
400
Cross section (mb)

ldmodel 2
150 ldmodel 1

300

100

200

50
100

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Alpha Energy (MeV) Alpha Energy (MeV)

FIG. 8. The comparison between available experimental
results from EXFOR, theoretical results from TALYS and
the calculated excitation function for the nuclear reaction
nat
Zn(α,x)69 Ge.
FIG. 9. The comparison between available experimental
results from EXFOR, theoretical results from TALYS and
the calculated excitation function for the nuclear reaction
nat
Zn(α,x)67 Ga.
 8

TABLE VIII. The calculated reaction cross-section, uncertainty and covariance matrix of the nuclear reaction
nat
Zn(α,x)68 Ge.

Eα (MeV) Cross-section (mb) Covariance matrix

(σ ± 4σ)
19.47 ± 1.15 31.07 ± 5.51 30.361
22.23 ± 0.98 53.77 ± 9.73 47.555 94.696
23.75 ± 1.09 76.06 ± 13.52 67.293 116.481 182.912
26.18 ± 0.96 88.85 ± 15.82 78.554 135.973 192.411 250.238
27.68 ± 0.89 110.28 ± 19.82 97.516 168.795 238.857 278.828 393.168
29.75 ± 0.92 130.32 ± 22.61 115.256 199.502 282.309 329.552 409.101 511.223
31.25 ± 0.52 148.54 ± 26.27 131.351 227.361 321.731 375.572 466.23 551.045 690.446
33.15 ± 0.78 139.19 ± 24.28 123.085 213.053 301.485 351.937 436.89 516.367 588.475 589.785
36.32 ± 0.46 121.18 ± 21.32 107.154 185.478 262.464 306.387 380.344 449.535 512.31 480.071 454.849

nat
TABLE IX. The calculated reaction cross-section, uncertainty and covariance matrix of the nuclear reaction Zn(α,x)69 Ge.

Eα (MeV) Cross-section (mb) Covariance matrix

(σ ± 4σ)
14.47 ± 1.17 138.13 ± 21.73 472.195
19.48 ± 1.15 140.28 ± 22.41 452.451 502.573
22.23 ± 0.98 123.52 ± 21.74 419.337 427.091 472.819
23.75 ± 1.09 75.39 ± 12.51 248.713 253.24 235.905 156.596
26.18 ± 0.96 48.27 ± 8.55 158.302 161.175 149.98 88.755 73.176
27.68 ± 0.89 51.0 ± 8.59 168.413 171.481 159.798 94.49 60.108 73.906
29.75 ± 0.92 37.64 ± 6.32 124.95 127.233 118.687 70.14 44.613 47.505 39.895
31.25 ± 0.52 46.35 ± 7.55 153.33 156.126 145.532 86.04 54.731 58.272 43.258 57.077
33.15 ± 0.78 48.6 ± 7.92 161.096 164.037 152.973 90.417 57.513 61.238 45.462 55.763 62.865
36.32 ± 0.46 84.06 ± 13.53 279.542 284.654 265.61 156.942 99.821 106.295 78.916 96.794 101.726 183.047

nat
TABLE X. The calculated reaction cross-section, uncertainty and covariance matrix of the nuclear reaction Zn(α,x)67 Ga.

Eα (MeV) Cross-section (mb) Covariance matrix

(σ ± 4σ)
14.47 ± 1.17 388.93 ± 72.75 5292.36
19.48 ± 1.15 430.71 ± 80.56 5563.68 6490.68
22.23 ± 0.98 252.40 ± 47.16 3261.03 3611.3 2224.87
23.75 ± 1.09 244.44 ± 45.68 3158.22 3497.44 2049.96 2086.53
26.18 ± 0.96 107.82 ± 20.13 1393.1 1542.73 904.24 875.73 405.1
27.68 ± 0.89 112.84 ± 21.07 1457.96 1614.56 946.35 916.51 404.27 443.84
29.75 ± 0.92 53.68 ± 10.03 693.54 768.03 450.17 435.97 192.31 201.26 100.51
31.25 ± 0.52 68.73 ± 12.85 887.9 983.26 576.32 558.15 246.2 257.67 122.57 165.243
33.15 ± 0.78 56.43 ± 10.53 729.07 807.38 473.23 458.31 202.16 211.57 100.64 128.85 111.06
36.32 ± 0.46 92.29 ± 17.23 1192.04 1320.08 773.74 749.34 330.54 345.93 164.56 210.67 172.98 297.03

nat
Zn(α,x)69 Ge nuclear reaction were calculated using a
γ-ray with an energy of 1106.77 keV and intensity of 36
% that decays from the 69 Ge radionuclide. There was a
cooling period of around two days for counting this γ-ray.
The calculated experimental results for nat Zn(α,x)69 Ge
reaction are in good agreement with existing reaction
data given by Y. Nagame et al. and M. Aikawa et al.
[32, 33], as shown in Fig. 8. The theoretical results from
ldmodel-3 (represented in magenta colour by a solid line)
are the most in accord with the calculated experimental
data and follow the trend of the exaction function of this
nuclear reaction. The measured reaction cross-sections
along with their uncertainties and covariance metrics for
the reaction nat Zn(α,x)69 Ge are presented in Table IX.
D. Production cross-section of 67
Ga
In our work measured nuclear reaction cross-section
value for the nat Zn(α,x)67 Ga nuclear reaction is pre-
sented in Fig. 9 along with the theoretical excitation
function from the TALYS nuclear model and previously
calculated cross-sections available on the EXFOR. The
nuclear reaction cross-sections for the nat Zn(α,x)67 Ga
nuclear reaction were calculated using a γ-ray with an
energy of 300.22 keV and intensity of 16.64 % that de-
cays from the 67 Ga radionuclide. There was a cooling
period of around two days for counting this γ-ray.
The calculated experimental results for nat Zn(α,x)67 Ga
reaction are in good agreement with existing reaction
data given by A. Karpeles and Y. Nagame et al. [32, 33],
as shown in Fig. 9. For this reaction, the theoretical
results underestimate the experimental measurements in
the energy range 10-30 MeV and the result of ldmodel-6
follows the trend of the excitation function above the 30
MeV energy. The measured reaction cross-sections along
with their uncertainties and covariance metrics for the
reaction nat Zn(α,x)67 Ga are presented in Table X.
[1] B. Mukhopadhyay, and K Mukhopadhyay, J. Nucl. Med.
Radiat. Ther. 2(2), (2011) 1000115.
[2] A. A. Alharbi, et al., In Radioisotopes-Applications in
Bio-Medical Science. IntechOpen, (2011).
[3] A. Gandhi, et al., Physical Review C. 102, (2020)
014603.
[4] A. Gandhi, et al., European Physical Journal A. 57,
(2021) 1.
[5] A. Gandhi et al., Chinese Physics C 46(1), (2022) 014002.
[6] A. Gandhi, A. Sharma, R. Pachuau, N. Singh, P. N. Patil,
M. Mehta, and A. Kumar, The European Physical Jour-
nal Plus, 136(8), (2021) 1-17.
[7] N. Otuka et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 120, (2014) 272.
9
VI. CONCLUSION
In the present work, the reaction cross-sections of
nat
Zn(α,x)68 Ge, nat Zn(α,x)69 Ge, nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn and
nat
Zn(α,x)67 Ga nuclear reactions in the energy range
about 14-37 MeV are determined using stack foil acti-
vation technique along with the covariance analysis. The
detailed uncertainty analysis for above mentioned nu-
clear reactions, as well as their accompanying covariance
matrix, is documented. The calculated nuclear reaction
cross-sections presented in this work are in good agree-
ment with existing reaction data from the EXFOR and
the theoretical excitation function from the TALYS nu-
clear model. The ldmodel-4 gives the best theoretical
results for the nuclear reaction nat Zn(α,x)65 Zn, ldmodel-
6 gives the best theoretical results for nucler reaction
nat
Zn(α,x)68 Ge and ldmodel-3 gives the best theoretical
results for nucler reaction nat Zn(α,x)69 Ge. The theoreti-
cal results of ldmodel-6 follow the trend of the excitation
function above 30 MeV energy for the nat Zn(α,x)67 Ga
nuclear reaction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author (Mahesh Choudhary) is thankful for fi-
nancial support in the form of Senior Research Fel-
lowships from the Council of Scientific and Indus-
trial Research (CSIR), Government of India, (File No
09/013(882)/2019-EMR-1). The SERB, DST, Govern-
ment of India [Grant No. CRG/2019/000360], and In-
stitutions of Eminence (IoE) BHU [Grant No. 6031]are
also gratefully acknowledged by one of the author (A.
Kumar).
We acknowledge the kind support provided by Prof.
Chandana Bhattacharya, Head, Experimental Nuclear
Physics Division, VECC, Kolkata and Prof. A. K. Tyagi,
Director, Chemistry Group, BARC, Mumbai towards
the successful execution of the experiment. We would
also like to express our gratitude to VECC’s Cyclotron
(K-130) staff for providing us with high-quality beams
throughout the experiment.
[8] IAEA-EXFOR Experimental nuclear reaction database,
https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor (Data retrieved on May
2022).
[9] A. J. Koning and D. Rochman, Nucl. Data Sheets 113,
(2012) 2841.
[10] A. J. Koning, S. Hilaire and M. C. Duijvestijn, TALYS-
1.0, Proceedings of the International Conference on Nu-
clear Data for Science and Technology, April 22-27, 2007,
Nice, France, editors O. Bersillon, F. Gunsing, E. Bauge,
R. Jacqmin, and S. Leray, EDP Sciences, (2008) 211.
[11] M. S. Uddin, K. S. Kim, M. Nadeem, S. Sudar, and G.
N. Kim, The European Physical Journal A, 53(5), (2017)
1-10.

[12] S. Takacs, M. P. Takacs, A. Hermanne, F. Tarkanyi,
and R. A. Rebeles, Nuclear Instruments and Methods
in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with
Materials and Atoms, 297, (2013) 44-57.
[13] S. Takacs, M. P. Takacs, A. Hermanne, F. Tarkanyi,
and R. A. Rebeles, Nuclear Instruments and Methods
in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with
Materials and Atoms, 278, (2012) 93-105.
[14] T. Siiskonen, J. Huikari, T. Haavisto, J. Bergman, S. J.
Heselius, J. O. Lill, T. Lonnroth and K. Perajarvi, Ap-
plied Radiation and Isotopes, 67(11), (2009) 2037-2039.
[15] J. F. Ziegler, M. D. Ziegler, and J. P. Biersack, Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B:
Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 268(11-
12), (2010) 1818-1823.
[16] Peter Sigmund, and Schinner Andreas, Nuclear Instru-
ments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam
Interactions with Materials and Atoms 410 (2017) 78-87.
[17] L. R. M Punte, B. Lalremruata, N. Otuka, S. V. Surya-
narayana, Y. Iwamoto, R. Pachuau, B. Satheesh, H. H.
Thanga, L. S. Danu, V. V. Desai, L. R. Hlondo, S. Kailas,
S. Ganesan, B. K. Nayak, A. Saxena, Phys. Rev. C 95,
(2017) 024619.
[18] H. Rameback et at., Journal of Radioanalytical and Nu-
clear Chemistry 304(1), (2015) 467-471.
[19] T. Vidmar, G. Kanisch, and G. Vidmar, App. Radiat.
Isot. 908, (2011) 69.
[20] R. Pachuau et al., Nucl. Phys. A 992, (2019) 121613.
[21] D. L. Smith, and N. Otuka, Nuclear Data Sheets,
113(12), 3006-3053 (2012).
10
[22] B. Lawriniang Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry, 319(3), (2019) 695-701.
[23] N. Otuka, Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 140, 502-
510 (2017).
[24] Mert Sekerci, Radiochimica Acta, 108(6), (2020) 459-
467.
[25] A. Gilbert and A.G.W. Cameron, Can. J. Phys. 43, 1446
(1965).
[26] W. Dilg, W. Schantl, H. Vonach, and M. Uhl, Nucl. Phys.
A 217, (1973) 269.
[27] A.V. Ignatyuk, J.L. Weil, S. Raman, and S. Kahane,
Phys. Rev. C 47, (1993) 1504.
[28] S. Goriely, F. Tondeur, and J. M. Pearson, A Hartree-
Fock nuclear mass table, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 77,
(2001) 311.
[29] S. Goriely, S. Hilaire and A.J. Koning, Phys. Rev. C 78,
(2008) 064307.
[30] S. Hilaire, M. Girod, S. Goriely, and A. J. Koning, Phys.
Rev. C 86, (2012) 064317.
[31] A. KARPELES, (1969). Radiochimica Acta, 12, (1969)
115-117.
[32] Y. Nagame, et al., The International Journal of Applied
Radiation and Isotopes 29 (1978) 615-619.
[33] M. Aikawa, M. Saito, S. Ebata, Y. Komori, and H. Haba,
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research
Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms,
427, (2018) 91-94.