logo

Investigation of the isotopic dependence in the synthesis of superheavy nuclei with Plutonium and Curium targets

NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Investigation of the isotopic dependence in the synthesis of superheavy nuclei with Plutonium and Curium targets

Ming-Hao Zhang
Mei-Chen Wang
Ying Zou
Gen Zhang
Qing-Lin Niu
Feng-Shou Zhang
Nuclear Science and TechniquesVol.37, No.6Article number 105Published in print Jun 2026Available online 26 Mar 2026
16001

In the synthesis of new superheavy nuclei, the various long half-lives of Pu and Cm isotopes render them promising target materials for fusion reactions. Investigating the isotopic dependence of actinide targets is important for selecting optimal reaction systems. Based on the dinuclear system model, the impact of the target isotope is investigated for the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu. The reaction systems with the 242-248Cm targets and the 45Sc, 50Ti, 51V, 54Cr, 55Mn projectiles are investigated for the synthesis of new isotopes 284-290Ts, 289-293,295Og, 290-296119, 293-299120, 294-300121. The isotopic dependence of the Cm targets revealed an ascending trend of the maximal ER cross section coupled with an odd-even effect as the neutron number of the target increased, and the 247Cm target emerged as promising for future experiments. The optimal reactions for producing new superheavy elements with Z = 119–121 are predicted to be the reactions 51V+245Cm, 54Cr+247Cm, and 55Mn+247Cm with maximal ER cross sections of 144 fb, 0.877 fb, and 0.052 fb, respectively.

Superheavy nucleiDinuclear system modelFusion reactionIsotopic dependence
1

Introduction

The synthesis and investigation of unknown superheavy elements (SHEs) can reveal the shell structure and decay properties near the predicted "island of stability" [1-5]. Over recent decades, remarkable advancements have been achieved in the synthesis of new SHEs with Z = 114–118 through fusion reactions with the 48Ca projectile and the actinide targets [6-11]. To date, modern accelerators coupled with sensitive detection techniques have made notable progress in the synthesis of new superheavy nuclei [12-20]. Despite these advances, a significant gap remains in the superheavy nuclei region, necessitating continued experimental and theoretical investigations.

For synthesizing new superheavy nuclei, the 48Ca-induced fusion reactions encounter constraints due to the limited amount of experimental feasible Bk and Cf targets. Consequently, employing combinations of Cm targets and heavier stable projectiles can be an alternative for future experiments. The mixed-Cm target material was produced by irradiating the plutonium target at the Savannah River Site, with subsequent recovery at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory [21]. With long half-lives ranging from decades to millions of years, many Pu and Cm isotopes have been extensively applied as target materials in fusion reactions aimed at synthesizing new isotopes [14, 22-37]. In 2022, the reaction 51V+248Cm was attempted to synthesize a new element with Z = 119, and the optimal reaction energy for this reaction was estimated [38]. These experiments revealed the critical influence of the target neutron excess on the maximal ER cross sections, indicating the necessity for further research into the isotopic dependence of target materials.

Based on the experimental results, a variety of theoretical models, including both the macroscopic [39-44] and the microscopic approaches [45-51], have been developed. Among these, the dinuclear system (DNS) model has been proven to be reliable in investigating the fusion-evaporation reactions [52-62]. Within the framework of the DNS model, the fusion-evaporation process is divided into three stages: initial formation of the DNS upon overcoming the Coulomb barrier by the colliding nuclei; subsequent production of a compound nucleus through nucleon transfer from the lighter projectile to the heavier target; and finally, the synthesis of a superheavy nucleus via the evaporation of neutrons by the excited compound nucleus to reach the ground state.

Experiments have revealed that the evaporation residual (ER) cross sections of fusion reactions exhibit remarkable sensitivity to the selection of the target material [14, 63]. The isotopic dependence of the target not only affects the ER cross sections for synthesizing new superheavy nuclei but also influences their decay properties and the feasibility of observation for a sufficient duration to study their chemical and physical properties. Therefore, to search for the optimal projectile-target combinations, it is necessary to investigate the isotopic dependence of the target materials. Based on the DNS model, this study discusses the isotopic dependence of the targets and investigates the potential for extending the superheavy nuclei region with Cm targets.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, we describe the theoretical framework of the DNS model. In Sect. 3, the reliability of the DNS model is examined based on the ample experimental results of the fusion reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu, with an investigation into the influence of the target isotope on the capture, fusion, and survival stages. Additionally, the experimental results of the reactions 48Ca+245,248Cm are compared with the theoretical calculations. The combinations of the 242-248Cm target and the 45Sc, 50Ti, 51V, 54Cr, and 55Mn projectiles were investigated for extending the superheavy nuclei region with Z = 117–121, presenting the maximal ER cross sections and corresponding incident energies. The isotopic dependence of the Cm targets was discussed in detail for the capture, fusion, and survival stages. In Sect. 4, a summary of this study is provided.

2

Theoretical descriptions

Within the framework of the DNS model, the ER cross section as a function of the center-of-mass energy Ec.m. is calculated by summing the contributing partial waves J [64]:pic (1)In this formula, is the transmission probability for the formation of the dinuclear system. denotes the probability of complete fusion into a compound nucleus [65]. represents the probability that the excited compound nucleus survives fission [66]. The interaction potential of the colliding nuclei is given as follows:pic (2)Here, indicates the corresponding static deformations, which are usually considered the quadrupole deformation parameters of the nucleus [1]. denotes the stiffness of the nuclear surface predicted by the liquid drop model [67, 68]. Assuming that the deformation energy is proportional to the mass number , the dynamical deformations of the two nuclei can be expressed in terms of the total dynamical deformation parameter . represents the additional deformation beyond the static values, which is distributed between the projectile and target according to the above relation derived from the energy minimization condition:pic (3)pic (4)with is a weighting coefficient.

The Coulomb potential VC is calculated using the Wong formula [69]:pic (5)The nuclear potential VN is described by a sudden-approximation double-folding potential [70]:pic (6)withpic (7)Here C0 = 300 MeV·fm3, fin=0.09, fex=-2.59, and [70]. The nuclear densities are expressed as two-parameter Woods–Saxon forms with a deformed radius:pic (8)pic (9)withpic (10)Here ρ0=0.17 fm-3 and a1,2 = 0.55 fm. Ri denotes the spherical radii of the nuclei, and is the spherical harmonic.

The transmission probability, which represents the capacity of colliding nuclei to surpass the Coulomb barrier, is determined as:pic (11) is given by the Ahmed formula [71-73]. The barrier distribution function f(B) is described by an asymmetric Gaussian form [73]:pic (12)Here, B represents the position of the Coulomb barrier. is given by a weighted combination of the two barrier values. refers to the Coulomb barrier of the spherical nuclei, whereas denotes that at the saddle-point. The width parameters Δ1 and Δ2 are defined as and , respectively. The deformation parameters correspond to the projectile and target nuclei in the saddle-point configuration. For deformed nuclear systems, the empirical parameters are set as a = 0.37, b = 0.12, and c = 1.12 [74].

The capture cross section is expressed as follows [75]:pic (13)In the DNS model, it is assumed that the two touching nuclei maintain their individual identities, along with their ground-state characteristics and deformations [76]. The nucleon transfer process occurs along the mass asymmetry degree . The nucleon transfer process, involving the dissipation of kinetic energy and angular momentum, occurs at the valley of the potential energy surface, defined as the driving potential [77]. To form a compound nucleus, the dinuclear system must possess sufficient energy to overcome the inner fusion barrier Bfus, which is the energy difference between the incident point and the point of the maximal driving potential (B.G. point). Therefore, with the interaction time τint(J) given by the deflection function method [78], the fusion probability is obtained by summing the distribution probabilities of the fragments that successfully overcome the inner fusion barrier:pic (14)Here, the distribution probability is determined by resolving a set of two-dimensional master equations [73]:pic (15) denotes the mean transition probability from (Z1, N1) to [79], is the microscopic dimension associated with (Z1, N1). Λqf and Λfis represents the quasi-fission and fission probabilities obtained using the one-dimensional Kramers formula [80].

For the evaporation of x neutrons, the survival probability is given by the statistical model:pic (16) is the realization probability of emitting x neutrons at excitation energy [81]. The realization probability for emitting one neutron is expressed as:pic (17)Here, σ = 2.5 MeV is the half-height width of the excitation function. For multiple neutron emissions, the realization probability can be expressed using the Jackson formula as follows:pic (18)where I and Δ are given bypic (19)pic (20)Here, is the separation energy of the i-th neutron. denotes the excitation energy before evaporating the i-th neutron. The partial decay widths for neutron evaporation Γn and fission decay Γf were determined using the Weisskopf-Ewing theory [82] and the Bohr-Wheeler transition-state method [83], respectively. The level density parameter a can be taken as a = A/12 MeV, and af/a = 1.1. In the calculation of Γf, the fission barrier of the rotating nucleus is expressed as:pic (21)Here, denotes the macroscopic part determined by the liquid-drop model. is the microscopic shell correction [1]. and represent the temperature-dependent parameter and shell damping energy, respectively, as defined in Ref. [84]. The moments of inertia of the compound nucleus in the ground state and at the saddle point are given by , respectively [85, 86], where k = 0.4 is the correction factor for the rigid-body approximation. The quadrupole deformation at the saddle point is taken as , with denoting the quadrupole deformation parameter at the ground state [1]. In this work, we analyze uncertainties arise from the parameterized ED [73, 87, 88].

3

Results and discussion

3.1
The isotopic dependence of the reactions with 239,240,242,244Pu targets

Given the large amount of available experimental data, Pu-based hot fusion reactions are crucial for assessing theoretical models. Typically, a higher neutron excess in the target leads to an enhanced maximal ER cross section. Figure 1 presents both experimental and theoretical maximal ER cross sections of the 3n- and 4n-emission channels for the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu. An ascending trend was observed in both the experimental and theoretical maximal ER cross sections with an increase in the neutron number in the target. Notably, the maximal ER cross sections of the 4n-emission channel increase more rapidly than those of the 3n-emission channel as the neutron number of the target increases. To understand the isotopic dependence of the target, thorough investigations of the capture, fusion, and survival stages are required.

Fig. 1
(Color online) The experimental [22-27, 34, 35] and calculated maximal ER cross sections in the 3n and 4n-emission channel of the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu→ 287,288,290,292-xnFl+xn
pic

Figure 2(a) presents the capture cross sections of the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu at , 40 and 45 MeV. This reveals that the capture cross sections increase with increasing , owing to the enhanced probability at higher for the colliding nuclei to overcome the Coulomb barrier. A slight declining trend in the capture cross sections was observed as the neutron number of the target increased. This can be attributed to the effect of the Coulomb barriers. Figure 2(b) illustrates the excitation energies associated with the Coulomb barriers for these reactions. It is evident that the values exhibit an upward trend as the neutron number of the target increases, resulting in a decrease in the capture cross section.

Fig. 2
(Color online) (a) The calculated capture cross sections for the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu→ 287,288,290,292-xnFl+xn with MeV, 40 MeV and 45 MeV. (b) The excitation energies of the corresponding Coulomb barriers of the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu→ 287,288,290,292-xnFl+xn
pic

For the fusion stage, Fig. 3(a) illustrates the fusion probabilities for the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu at , 40 and 45 MeV. The fusion probabilities exhibited a slight decreasing trend with increasing neutron number of the Pu target. Moreover, as the increases, the fusion probabilities are enhanced, and the isotopic effect on the fusion probabilities gradually diminishes. This can be attributed to the influence of the inner fusion barriers. The formation of the compound nucleus requires overcoming the inner fusion barrier; otherwise, quasi-fission occurs. At higher , the impediment from the inner fusion barrier fades, leading to a higher fusion probability and diminished isotopic dependence. In Fig. 3(b), the inner fusion barrier height Bfus values of the Pu-based reactions are presented. The Bfus exhibits a slight variation of approximately 0.1 MeV, resulting in minimal differences in the fusion probabilities, less than an order of magnitude.

Fig. 3
(Color online) (a) The calculated fusion probabilities for the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu→ 287,288,290,292-xnFl+xn with MeV, 40 MeV and 45 MeV. (b) The Bfus values of the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu→ 287,288,290,292-xnFl+xn
pic

Within the framework of the dinuclear system model, the survival process is independent of the formation of the compound nucleus. The isotopic dependence of the target primarily affects the neutron richness of the formed compound nucleus. Figures 4(a) and 4(b) display the survival probabilities of the compound nuclei formed via the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu in the 3n- and 4n-emission channels at different . It is observed that as the increases, the survival probabilities diminish, suggesting that the compound nucleus becomes less stable and is more likely to undergo fission at high . Additionally, both Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b) reveal an enhancement in the survival probability with the neutron-rich target. This trend is due to the enhanced stability of the formed compound nucleus as it approaches a closed neutron shell.

Fig. 4
(Color online) (a) The calculated survival probabilities for the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu→ 287,288,290,292-xnFl+xn with MeV, 40 MeV and 45 MeV. (b) The calculated survival probabilities for the same reactions with MeV, 45 MeV and 50 MeV. (c) The values of the corresponding emission channel for the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu→ 287,288,290,292-xnFl+xn
pic

Notably, the variation in the survival probabilities in the 3n-emission channel is approximately an order of magnitude, whereas in the 4n-emission channel, the variation is approximately two orders of magnitude. This can be attributed to the influence of the fission barrier height . Within the DNS model, the survival probability is determined by the competition between fission and neutron emission. In Fig. 4(c), the values are presented. This reveals that as the formed compound nucleus approaches the closed neutron shell N = 184, the value increases, resulting in a suppressed possibility of fission, thereby enhancing the survival probability. The impact of the fission barrier is more pronounced in the calculation of survival probabilities in the 4n-emission channel owing to the additional competition between neutron emission and fission. Hence, with an increase in the neutron number of the target nucleus, a more significant enhancement in the survival probability was observed in the 4n-emission channel. The investigation of the capture, fusion and survival stages reveals a substantial enhancement in the survival probabilities of the compound nuclei formed by the neutron-rich Pu targets. This enhancement significantly contributes to the observed high ER cross section.

3.2
The synthesis of new superheavy nuclei with 242-248Cm targets

In Fig. 5, the comparative analysis between calculated and experimental results is extended to the reactions 48Ca+245Cm→293-xnLv+xn and 48Ca+248Cm→296-xnLv+xn. The theoretical results for both reactions are in agreement with the experimental results in the 3n-emission channel. For the 4n-emission channel, the calculated ER cross sections were consistent with the experimental results for the reaction 48Ca+245Cm, while the calculated maximal ER cross section for the reaction 48Ca+248Cm exceeded the currently available experimental results. Investigations into the Pu- and Cm-based reactions prove not only the reliability of the DNS model but also its potential in identifying the optimal projectile-target combinations for the synthesis of new superheavy nuclei with Cm targets.

Fig. 5
(Color online) Comparison of the calculated results with the available experimental data of the reactions 48Ca+245,248Cm→ 293,296-xnLv+xn [6, 34, 35]
pic

In Table 1, the optimal reaction systems, alongside the corresponding Ec.m., and the maximal ER cross sections of the reaction systems with 45Sc, 50Ti, 51V, 54Cr, 55Mn projectiles and 242-248Cm targets are presented. This indicates an exponential decrease in the maximal ER cross sections with an increase in the charge number of the formed compound nuclei. The comprehensive analysis in Table 1 reveals a dominance of the 3n-emission channel in the synthesis of new superheavy nuclei via the Cm-based reactions. An exception is observed in the synthesis of the isotope 293Og, where the reaction 50Ti+247Cm → 293Og+4n exhibits a calculated maximal ER cross section of 114 fb. This value slightly exceeds the maximal ER cross section of 102 fb for the reaction 50Ti+246Cm → 293Og+3n. For the synthesis of SHE with Z = 119, the maximal ER cross section of 144 fb appears in the reaction 51V+245Cm → 293119+3n. However, the synthesis of SHE with Z = 120 and 121 exhibits significantly reduced maximal ER cross sections of 0.877 fb for the reaction 54Cr+247Cm → 298120+3n and 0.052 fb for the reaction 55Mn+247Cm → 299121+3n, respectively, which can be attributed to the increase in the mass number of the projectile.

Table 1
The optimal Cm-based reaction systems for producing new superheavy nuclei with Z=117–121
Isotope Reaction Ec.m. (MeV) (MeV) (fb)
284Ts 242Cm(45Sc,3n) 209.0 38.0
285Ts 243Cm(45Sc,3n) 205.7 36.0
286Ts 244Cm(45Sc,3n) 204.6 36.0
287Ts 245Cm(45Sc,3n) 202.2 35.0
288Ts 246Cm(45Sc,3n) 202.0 36.0
289Ts 247Cm(45Sc,3n) 199.7 35.0
290Ts 248Cm(45Sc,3n) 200.3 37.0
289Og 242Cm(50Ti,3n) 226.1 36.0
290Og 243Cm(50Ti,3n) 224.3 35.0
291Og 244Cm(50Ti,3n) 223.5 35.0
292Og 245Cm(50Ti,3n) 221.4 34.0
293Og 247Cm(50Ti,4n) 224.8 39.0
295Og 248Cm(50Ti,3n) 220.0 35.0
290119 242Cm(51V,3n) 237.0 36.0
291119 243Cm(51V,3n) 234.9 35.0
292119 244Cm(51V,3n) 233.9 35.0
293119 245Cm(51V,3n) 230.8 33.0
294119 246Cm(51V,3n) 231.7 35.0
295119 247Cm(51V,3n) 228.8 33.0
296119 248Cm(51V,3n) 230.0 35.0
293120 242Cm(54Cr,3n) 248.6 37.0
294120 243Cm(54Cr,3n) 246.9 36.0
295120 244Cm(54Cr,3n) 246.7 37.0
296120 245Cm(54Cr,3n) 245.0 36.0
297120 246Cm(54Cr,3n) 244.1 36.0
298120 247Cm(54Cr,3n) 242.3 35.0
299120 248Cm(54Cr,3n) 242.1 34.0
294121 242Cm(55Mn,3n) 259.1 38.0
295121 243Cm(55Mn,3n) 256.9 37.0
296121 244Cm(55Mn,3n) 255.8 37.0
297121 245Cm(55Mn,3n) 253.6 36.0
298121 246Cm(55Mn,3n) 253.7 37.0
299121 247Cm(55Mn,3n) 251.5 36.0
300121 248Cm(55Mn,3n) 250.7 36.0
Show more
The isotopes, reaction systems, optimal incident energy Ec.m., and maximal calculated ER cross sections are listed in columns 1–5, respectively. Theoretical computational uncertainties arise from the ED range
3.3
The isotopic dependence of the reactions with 242-248Cm targets

To further investigate the isotopic dependence of the 242-248Cm target, the calculated maximal ER cross sections of the Cm-based reactions in the 3n-emission channel are plotted in Fig. 6. An increasing trend in the maximal ER cross sections was observed as the neutron excess in the Cm target increased. This trend is accompanied by an apparent odd-even stagger, indicating the advantage of neutron-rich Cm targets with odd neutron numbers. To further discuss this phenomenon, the capture, fusion, and survival stages are discussed in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6
(Color online) The calculated maximal ER cross sections in the 3n-emission channel for synthesizing new superheavy nuclei with Z = 117–121 via the combinations of the 45Sc, 50Ti, 51V, 54Cr and 55Mn projectiles and the 242-248Cm targets
pic
Fig. 7
(Color online) (a) The capture cross sections, (b) the fusion probabilities and (c) the survival probabilities at MeV for synthesizing new superheavy nuclei with Z = 117–121 via the combinations of the 45Sc, 50Ti, 51V, 54Cr and 55Mn projectiles and the 242-248Cm targets
pic

In Fig. 7(a), the capture cross sections of the reaction systems with 45Sc, 50Ti, 51V, 54Cr, 55Mn projectiles and 242-248Cm targets are presented. Consistent with the aforementioned discussion, the capture cross sections displayed a decreasing trend as the neutron number of the target increased. For 45Sc-induced reactions, the isotopic effect on the capture was relatively significant. For the other reactions, the capture cross section exhibited considerably less variation. Figure 7(b) presents the fusion probabilities of the corresponding reactions. A significant decline in the fusion probabilities was observed between the 45Sc- and 50Ti-induced reactions, as well as the 51V- and 54Cr-induced reactions. This can be ascribed to the varying mass asymmetry values influenced by the projectile mass numbers. In Fig. 7(b), a decreasing trend in the fusion probabilities with an increasing neutron number of the target can be observed. This isotopic-dependent decreasing trend in the fusion probability, along with the same trend discussed in Fig. 3, can be attributed to the deviation in the neutron number of the target from the closed neutron shell [89]. Furthermore, an odd-even effect can also be noted, which can be attributed to the pairing effect in the fusion stage.

In Fig. 7(c), the survival probabilities of the corresponding reactions in the 3n-emission channel are presented. As the neutron number of the formed compound nucleus approaches the predicted closed neutron shell, N = 184, the stability of the compound nucleus is enhanced, leading to ascending survival probabilities with increasing neutron excess in the target. The odd-even effect is also significant, which primarily arises from the influence of the variance of the fission barrier. For reactions synthesizing superheavy nuclei with Z = 117, the survival probability increases rapidly as the neutron number of the target increases. This trend can be attributed to the neutron number of the formed compound nuclei approaching the semi-closed neutron shell at N = 178. It was also observed that for reactions involving even-even projectiles such as 50Ti and 54Cr, the odd-even effect was suppressed. This reduction in the odd-even effect can be ascribed to the pairing effects. It is evident that, in the synthesis of new superheavy nucleus via the 242-248Cm targets, the isotopic dependence on the maximal ER cross section mainly arises from the survival stages. Here, the odd-even effect, coupled with the high neutron excess of the target, strongly enhances the stability of the formed compound nucleus. Consequently, the 247Cm target is favorable for the future synthesis of superheavy nuclei.

4

Summary

In this study, the predictive reliability of the DNS model on isotopic dependence was examined using experimental results for the reactions 48Ca+239,240,242,244Pu. The impact of the target isotope is discussed in the capture, fusion, and survival stages, revealing a strong enhancement in the survival probabilities owing to the influence of the fission barrier height. The feasibility of applying the 242-248Cm targets and the stable projectiles 45Sc, 50Ti, 51V, 54Cr, 55Mn for synthesizing new superheavy nuclei 284-290Ts, 289-293,295Og, 290-296119, 293-299120, 294-300121 is investigated. To synthesize new superheavy elements with Z = 119–121, the optimal reaction systems are predicted to be the reactions 51V+245Cm → 293119+3n, 54Cr+247Cm → 298120+3n, and 55Mn+247Cm → 299121+3n, with the maximal ER cross sections of 144 fb, 0.877 fb, and 0.052 fb, respectively. The isotopic dependence of the maximal ER cross sections of the 242-248Cm-based reactions was investigated in detail, indicating that the isotopic dependence of the Cm targets mainly arises from the survival stages. This is attributed to the enhanced stability of the formed compound nuclei, influenced by a higher neutron number when approaching the predicted neutron shell closure N=184. The odd-even effect coupled with the high neutron excess renders the 247Cm target promising for the future synthesis of superheavy nuclei.

References
1.P. Möller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa et al.,

Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: FRDM(2012)

. At. Data. Nucl. Data Tables 109-110, 1204 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2015.10.002
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
2.S. Ćwiok, P.H. Heenen, W. Nazarewicz,

Shape coexistence and triaxiality in the superheavy nuclei

. Nature 433, 705709 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03336
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
3.A.T. Kruppa, M. Bender, W. Nazarewicz et al.,

Shell corrections of superheavy nuclei in self-consistent calculations

. Phys. Rev. C 61, 034313 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.61.034313
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
4.D. Ackermann, C. Theisen,

Nuclear structure features of very heavy and superheavy nuclei-tracing quantum mechanics towards the ’island of stability’

. Phys. Scr. 92(8), 083002 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/aa7921
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
5.M.H. Zhang, Y. Zou, M.C. Wang et al.,

Possibility of reaching the predicted center of the “island of stability” via the radioactive beam-induced fusion reactions

. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 161 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-024-01542-x
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
6.Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, Y.V. Lobanov et al.,

Synthesis of the isotopes of elements 118 and 116 in the 249Cf and 245Cm+48Ca fusion reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 74, 044602 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.044602
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
7.Y.T. Oganessian, A. Yeremin, A. Popeko et al.,

Synthesis of nuclei of the superheavy element 114 in reactions induced by 48Ca

. Nature 400, 242 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/22281
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
8.Y.T. Oganessian, F.S. Abdullin, S.N. Dmitriev et al.,

Investigation of the 243Am+ 48 Ca reaction products previously observed in the experiments on elements 113, 115, and 117

. Phy. Rev. C 87, 014302 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014302
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
9.Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, Y.V. Lobanov et al.,

Observation of the decay of 292116

. Phy. Rev. C 63, 011301(R) (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.63.011301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
10.Y.T. Oganessian, F.S. Abdullin, P.D. Bailey et al.,

Synthesis of a new element with atomic number Z = 117

. Phy. Rev. Lett. 104, 142502 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
11.M.H. Zhang, Y.H. Zhang, J.J. Li et al.,

Progress in transport models of heavy-ion collisions for the synthesis of superheavy nuclei

. Nucl. Tech 46, 137-145 (2023). https://doi.org/10.11889/j.0253-3219.2023.hjs.46.080014
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
12.T. Huang, D. Seweryniak, B.B. Back et al.,

Discovery of the new isotope 251Lr: Impact of the hexacontetrapole deformation on single-proton orbital energies near the Z=100 deformed shell gap

. Phys. Rev. C 106, L061301 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.L061301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
13.K. Morita, K. Morimoto, D. Kaji et al.,

Experiment on the synthesis of element 113 in the reaction 209Bi (70Zn, n) 278113

. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73, 2593 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1143/jpsj.73.2593
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
14.Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov,

Super-heavy element research

. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78(3), 036301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/78/3/036301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
15.Y. Oganessian, V. Utyonkov,

Superheavy nuclei from 48Ca-induced reactions

. Nucl. Phys. A 944, 6298 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.07.003
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
16.M. Thoennessen,

Discovery of isotopes of elements with Z ≥ 100

. At. Data. Nucl. Data Tables. 99(3), 312344 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2012.03.003
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
17.Z. Y. Zhang, Z. G. Gan, L. Ma et al.,

Observation of the superheavy nuclide 271Ds

. Chin. Phys. Lett. 29(1), 012502 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/29/1/012502
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
18.Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, N.D. Kovrizhnykh et al.,

New isotope 286Mc produced in the 243Am+48Ca reaction

. Phys. Rev. C 106, 064306 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.064306
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
19.S. Hofmann,

Synthesis of superheavy elements by cold fusion

. Radiochim. Acta 99, 405428 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1524/ract.2011.1854
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
20.M.H. Zhang, Z.Y. Zhang, Z.G. Gan et al.,

Progress on the synthesis of superheavy nuclei

. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 36, 204 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-025-01781-6
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
21.S.M. Robinson, J. Allender, N. Bridges et al.,

Recovery of mark-18a (mk-18a) target materials: Program management plan. Tech. rep.

, Oak Ridge National Lab.(ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States) (2014). https://doi.org/10.2172/1159480
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
22.V.K. Utyonkov, N.T. Brewer, Y.T. Oganessian et al.,

Experiments on the synthesis of superheavy nuclei 284Fl and 285Fl in the 239,240Pu+48Ca reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 92, 034609 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034609
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
23.V.K. Utyonkov, N.T. Brewer, Y.T. Oganessian et al.,

Neutron-deficient superheavy nuclei obtained in the 240Pu+48Ca reaction

. Phys. Rev. C 97, 014320 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.014320
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
24.Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, D. Ibadullayev et al.,

Investigation of 48Ca-induced reactions with 242Pu and 238U targets at the jinr superheavy element factory

. Phys. Rev. C 106, 024612 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024612
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
25.L. Stavsetra, K.E. Gregorich, J. Dvorak et al.,

Independent verification of element 114 production in the 48Ca+242Pu reaction

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 132502 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.132502
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
26.P.A. Ellison, K.E. Gregorich, J.S. Berryman et al.,

New superheavy element isotopes: 242Pu(48Ca,5n)285114

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 182701 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.182701
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
27.J.M. Gates, C.E. Düllmann, M. Schädel et al.,

First superheavy element experiments at the GSI recoil separator TASCA: The production and decay of element 114 in the 244Pu(48Ca,3-4n) reaction

. Phys. Rev. C 83, 054618 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.054618
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
28.T. Sikkeland, A. Ghiorso, M.J. Nurmia,

Analysis of excitation functions in Cm(C, xn)No reactions

. Phys. Rev. 172, 12321238 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.172.1232
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
29.M. Murakami, S. Goto, H. Murayama et al.,

Excitation functions for production of rf isotopes in the 248Cm +18O reaction

. Phys. Rev. C 88, 024618 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024618
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
30.Y. Nagame, M. Asai, H. Haba et al.,

Status and prospects of heavy element nuclear chemistry research at jaeri

. J. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci. 3(1), 129 (2002). https://doi.org/10.14494/jnrs2000.3.129
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
31.H. Haba, M. Huang, D. Kaji et al.,

Production of 262Db in the 248Cm(19F,5n)262Db reaction and decay properties of 262Db and 258Lr

. Phys. Rev. C 89, 024618 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.024618
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
32.H. Haba, D. Kaji, Y. Kudou et al.,

Production of 265Sg in the 248Cm(22Ne,5n)265Sg reaction and decay properties of two isomeric states in 265Sg

. Phys. Rev. C 85, 024611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024611
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
33.J. Dvorak, W. Brüchle, M. Chelnokov et al.,

Observation of the 3n evaporation channel in the complete hot-fusion reaction 26Mg+248Cm leading to the new superheavy nuclide 271Hs

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 132503 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.132503
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
34.Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, Y.V. Lobanov et al.,

Measurements of cross sections for the fusion-evaporation reactions 244Pu (48Ca, xn) 292-x 114 and 245Cm (48Ca, xn) 293-x 116

. Phy. Rev. C 69(5), 054607 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.054607
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
35.Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, Y.V. Lobanov et al.,

Measurements of cross sections and decay properties of the isotopes of elements 112, 114, and 116 produced in the fusion reactions 233, 238U, 242Pu, and 248Cm + 48Ca

. Phy. Rev. C 70(6), 064609 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.064609
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
36.F.P. Heßberger, D. Ackermann,

Some critical remarks on a sequence of events interpreted to possibly originate from a decay chain of an element 120 isotope

. Eur. Phys. J. A 53(6), 19 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2017-12307-5
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
37.D. Hartanto, D. Chandler, J.W. Bae et al.,

252cf production at the high flux isotope reactor: Nuclear data selection and leu conversion impacts, Tech. rep.

, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States) (2023).
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
38.M. Tanaka, P. Brionnet, M. Du et al.,

Probing optimal reaction energy for synthesis of element 119 from 51V+248Cm reaction with quasielastic barrier distribution measurement

. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91(8), 084201 (2022). https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.91.084201
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
39.K. Siwek-Wilczyńska, T. Cap, M. Kowal et al.,

Predictions of the fusion-by-diffusion model for the synthesis cross sections of Z=114–120 elements based on macroscopic-microscopic fission barriers

. Phys. Rev. C 86, 014611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014611
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
40.L. Liu, C.W. Shen, Q.F. Li et al.,

Residue cross sections of 50Ti-induced fusion reactions based on the two-step model

. Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 3539 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16035-0
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
41.C. W. Shen, Y. Abe, D. Boilley et al.,

Isospin dependence of reactions 48Ca+243-251Bk

. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 17, 6679 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301308011768
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
42.D. Boilley, Y. Abe, B. Cauchois et al.,

Elimination of fast variables and initial slip: a new mechanism for fusion hindrance in heavy-ion collisions

. J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys 46(11), 115102 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ab11ef
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
43.V. Zagrebaev, W. Greiner,

Cross sections for the production of superheavy nuclei

. Nucl. Phys. A 944, 257307 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.02.010
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
44.S. Amano, Y. Aritomo, M. Ohta,

Dynamical mechanism of fusion hindrance in heavy ion collisions

. Phys. Rev. C 108, 014612 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.108.014612
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
45.N. Wang, Z. Li, X. Wu,

Improved quantum molecular dynamics model and its applications to fusion reaction near barrier

. Phys. Rev. C 65, 064608 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.65.064608
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
46.X.X. Sun, L. Guo,

Microscopic study of the hot-fusion reaction 48Ca+238U with the constraints from time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory

. Phys. Rev. C 107, 064609 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.107.064609
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
47.R. Gumbel, C. Ross, A.S. Umar,

Role of isospin composition in low-energy nuclear fusion

. Phys. Rev. C 108, L051602 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.108.L051602
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
48.A. S. Umar, V. E. Oberacker, J. A. Maruhn et al.,

Entrance channel dynamics of hot and cold fusion reactions leading to superheavy elements

. Phys. Rev. C 81, 064607 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064607
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
49.K. Sekizawa, K. Hagino,

Time-dependent Hartree-Fock plus Langevin approach for hot fusion reactions to synthesize the Z = 120 superheavy element

. Phys. Rev. C 99, 051602(R) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.051602
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
50.L. L. Zhou, J. J. Cai, L. Q. Li et al.,

Fusion enhancement in the collisions with 44Ca beams and the production of neutron-deficient 245–250Lr isotopes

. Phys. Rev. C 109, 024606 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.109.024606
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
51.L. Guo, C. W. Shen, C. Yu et al.,

Isotopic trends of quasifission and fusion-fission in the reactions 48Ca+239,244Pu

. Phys. Rev. C 98, 064609 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.064609
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
52.N. Wang, E. G. Zhao, W. Scheid et al.,

Theoretical study of the synthesis of superheavy nuclei with Z=119 and 120 in heavy-ion reactions with trans-uranium targets

. Phys. Rev. C 85, 041601 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.041601
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
53.X. J. Bao,

Possibility to produce 293,295,296Og in the reactions 48Ca+249,250,251Cf

. Phys. Rev. C 100, 011601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.100.011601
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
54.L. Zhu,

Law of optimal incident energy for synthesizing superheavy elements in hot fusion reactions

. Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022030 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.L022030
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
55.L. Zhu, J. Su, F. S. Zhang,

Influence of the neutron numbers of projectile and target on the evaporation residue cross sections in hot fusion reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 93, 064610 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.064610
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
56.J. J. Li, N. Tang, Y. H. Zhang et al.,

Progress on production cross-sections of unknown nuclei in fusion evaporation reactions and multinucleon transfer reactions

. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 32(01), 2330002 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301323300023
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
57.A. Nasirov, B. Kayumov,

Optimal colliding energy for the synthesis of a superheavy element with Z=119

. Phys. Rev. C 109, 024613 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.109.024613
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
58.L. Q. Li, G. Zhang, F. S. Zhang,

Production of unknown Fl isotopes in proton evaporation channels within the dinuclear system model

. Phys. Rev. C 106, 024601 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024601
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
59.L. Zhu, W.J. Xie, F.S. Zhang,

Production cross sections of superheavy elements Z=119 and 120 in hot fusion reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 89, 024615 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.024615
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
60.X. J. Bao, Y. Gao, J. Q. Li et al.,

Isotopic dependence of superheavy nuclear production in hot fusion reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 92, 034612 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034612
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
61.G.G. Adamian, N.V. Antonenko, W. Scheid,

Isotopic trends in the production of superheavy nuclei in cold fusion reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 69, 011601 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.011601
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
62.M.H. Zhang, Y. Zou, M.C. Wang et al.,

Predictions for the synthesis of new superheavy nuclei with a 252Cf target

. Chin. Phys. C 49, 054107 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/ada3cc
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
63.J. Khuyagbaatar, A. Yakushev, C.E. Düllmann et al.,

Search for elements 119 and 120

. Phys. Rev. C 102, 064602 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.064602
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
64.A.K. Nasirov, A.R. Yusupov, B.M. Kayumov,

Small cross section of the synthesis of darmstadtium in the 48Ca+232Th reaction

. Phys. Rev. C 110(1), 014618 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.110.014618
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
65.V.I. Zagrebaev,

Synthesis of superheavy nuclei: Nucleon collectivization as a mechanism for compound nucleus formation

. Phys. Rev. C 64, 034606 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.64.034606
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
66.A.S. Zubov, G.G. Adamian, N.V. Antonenko et al.,

Survival probability of superheavy nuclei

. Phys. Rev. C 65, 024308 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.65.024308
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
67.W.D. Myers, W.J. Swiatecki,

Nuclear masses and deformations

. Nucl. Phys. 81(1), 160 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5582(66)90639-0
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
68.M.H. Zhang, M.C. Wang, Y. Zou et al.,

Predictions for the synthesis of unknown 279-281Nh and 287,288Nh isotopes

. Phys. Rev. C 111, 024611 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.111.024611
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
69.C. Y. Wong,

Interaction barrier in charged-particle nuclear reactions

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 766769 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.31.766
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
70.Q.F. Li, W. Zuo, W.F. Li et al.,

Deformation and orientation effects in the driving potential of the dinuclear model

. The European Physical Journal A - Hadrons and Nuclei. 24, 223229 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2004-10138-1
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
71.Z. Ahmed,

Tunnelling through the morse barrier

. Phys. Lett. A 157, 15 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(91)90399-S
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
72.V.Y. Denisov,

Expression for the heavy-ion fusion cross section

. Phys. Rev. C 107, 054618 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.107.054618
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
73.M.H. Zhang, Y.H. Zhang, Y. Zou et al.,

Predictions of synthesizing elements with Z=119 and 120 in fusion reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 109, 014622 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.109.014622
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
74.B. Wang, K. Wen, W.J. Zhao et al.,

Systematics of capture and fusion dynamics in heavy-ion collisions

. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 114, 281370 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2016.06.003
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
75.V.Yu. Denisov,

Compound nucleus formation cross sections in lead-induced reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 111(2), 024601 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.111.024601
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
76.G.G. Adamian, N.V. Antonenko, R.V. Jolos,

Mass parameters for a dinuclear system

. Nucl. Phys. A 584(1), 205220 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(94)00505-H
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
77.B.M. Kayumov, O.K. Ganiev, A.K. Nasirov et al.,

Analysis of the fusion mechanism in the synthesis of superheavy element 119 via the 54Cr+243Am reaction

. Phys. Rev. C 105(1), 014618 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014618
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
78.J. Q. Li, G. Wolschin,

Distribution of the dissipated angular momentum in heavy-ion collisions

. Phys. Rev. C 27, 590601 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.27.590
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
79.S. Ayik, B. Schürmann, W. Nörenberg,

Microscopic transport theory of heavy-ion collisions

. Z. Phys. A 277(3), 299310 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01415605
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
80.G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, W. Scheid,

Characteristics of quasifission products within the dinuclear system model

. Phys. Rev. C 68, 034601 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034601
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
81.J.D. Jackson,

A schematic model for (p, xn) cross sections in heavy elements

. Can. J. Phys. 34, 767779 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1139/p56-087
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
82.V. Weisskopf,

Statistics and nuclear reactions

. Phys. Rev. 52, 295303 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.52.295
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
83.N. Bohr, J.A. Wheeler,

The mechanism of nuclear fission

. Phys. Rev. 56, 426450 (1939). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.56.426
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
84.L. Zhu,

Selection of projectiles for producing trans-uranium nuclei in transfer reactions within the improved dinuclear system model

. J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys 47, 065107 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ab871f
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
85.W. F. Li, Z.Z. Wang, H.S. Xu et al.,

Odd–Even effects of the survival probability for superheavy compound nuclei

. Chin. Phys. Lett. 21, 636 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/21/4/013
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
86.C.J. Xia, B.X. Sun, E.G. Zhao et al.,

Systematic study of survival probability of excited superheavy nuclei

. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 54, 109113 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-011-4438-2
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
87.H. , D. Boilley, Y. Abe et al.,

Synthesis of superheavy elements: Uncertainty analysis to improve the predictive power of reaction models

. Phys. Rev. C 94, 034616 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034616
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
88.J.A. Sheikh, W. Nazarewicz, J.C. Pei,

Systematic study of fission barriers of excited superheavy nuclei

. Phys. Rev. C 80, 011302(R) (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80.011302
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
89.K. H. Schmidt, W. Morawek,

The conditions for the synthesis of heavy nuclei

. Rep. Prog. Phys. 54(7), 949 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/54/7/002
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
Footnote

Feng-Shou Zhang is an editorial board member for Nuclear Science and Techniques and was not involved in the editorial review, or the decision to publish this article. All authors declare that there are no competing interests.