Systematic study on the proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters

Systematic study on the proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters 1 first-author 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 corresp † lixiaohuaphysics@126.com † lixiaohuaphysics@126.com lixiaohuaphysics@126.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3399-6057 School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China National Exemplary Base for International Sci & Tech. Collaboration of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Safety, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China National Exemplary Base for International Sci & Tech. Collaboration of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Safety, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China Cooperative Innovation Center for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology & Equipment, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China Cooperative Innovation Center for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology & Equipment, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China Key Laboratory of Low Dimensional Quantum Structures and Quantum Control, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China Key Laboratory of Low Dimensional Quantum Structures and Quantum Control, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China In this study, based on a two-potential approach, we systematically investigated the proton radioactivity half-lives of spherical proton emitters with 69≤ Z ≤ 81 from the ground and/or isomeric state, choosing the nuclear potential to be a modified Woods–Saxon potential that contains the isospin effect of the daughter nucleus. It was found that the calculated half-lives could reproduce the experimental data well. Furthermore, we extended this model to predict the half-lives of 17 proton-emitting candidates whose radioactivity is energetically allowed or observed but not yet quantified in NUBASE2020. For comparison, the unified fission model, Coulomb potential and proximity potential model, universal decay law for proton emission, and new Geiger–Nuttall law were also used. All the predicted results are consistent with each other. Proton radioactivity Spherical nuclei Two-potential approach Modified Woods–Saxon potential Half-lives Introduction 1 Proton radioactivity, the spontaneous process in which a nucleus with a large excess of protons transforms into the stable state by emitting an individual proton, was first observed by Jackson et al. [ 1 1 , 2 2 ] from an isomeric state of 53 Co. In the early 1980s, Hofmann et al. [ 3 3 ] and Klepper et al. [ 4 4 ] further discovered proton emission from the nuclear ground states of 151 Lu and 147 Tm, respectively. With the advancement of diverse infrastructures and radioactive beam installations, more than 40 proton emitters have been provenly illustrated in the proton number range 51≤ Z ≤ 83 from the ground state or low-lying isomeric state during the last decades [ 5 5 - 10 10 5-10 ]. Proton radioactivity can be used as an effective probe to identify nuclei near the proton drip line and explore diverse nuclear information, such as the released energy, half-lives, branching ratio, and wave function of the parent nucleus [ 11 11 - 14 14 11-14 ]. However, the study of proton-rich nuclei far from the β -stability line has become an extremely hot topic in nuclear physics. Proton radioactivity shares the same decay mechanism as α decay [ 15 15 - 20 20 15-20 ], two-proton radioactivity [ 21 21 - 29 29 21-29 ], and cluster radioactivity [ 30 30 , 31 31 ], that is, barrier penetration. These processes can be dealt with using the Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin (WKB) approximation. To date, many models and/or formulae have been proposed to calculate the half-life of proton radioactivity, which can be divided into the following two categories: The first are theoretical models, including the effective interactions of density-dependent M3Y [ 32 32 , 33 33 ], single-folding model [ 21 21 ], unified fission model (UFM) [ 34 34 , 35 35 ], Gamow-like model [ 36 36 ], Coulomb and proximity potential model [ 37 37 - 39 39 37-39 ], generalized liquid-drop model [ 7 7 , 40 40 - 42 42 40-42 ], and modified two-potential approach [ 11 11 , 43 43 , 44 44 ]. The second are empirical formulae proposed in the form of the Geiger–Nuttall (G-N) law [ 45 45 ], such as the universal decay law for proton emission (UDLP) [ 46 46 ], the new Geiger-Nuttall law (NG-N) [ 47 47 ], the four-parameter empirical formula of Zhang and Dong [ 12 12 ], and the screened decay law for proton emission [ 48 48 ]. Calculations using these theoretical methods provide excellent estimates of the lifetime of proton radioactivity and improve our understanding of the proton radioactivity phenomenon. For proton radioactivity, it is well known that the emitted particle–nucleus interaction potential is extremely crucial to improving the accuracy of half-life calculations. In 2008, based on the Skyrme-energy-density-function approach, taking into account the isospin effect of the nuclear potential, Wang et al. [ 49 49 , 50 50 ] proposed a modified Woods–Saxon potential to describe a large number of heavy-ion elastic or quasi-elastic scattering and fusion reactions. Later, it was widely used to study α decay and cluster radioactivity [ 51 51 , 52 52 ]. Whether this modified potential can be extended to investigate proton radioactivity is an interesting topic. To this end, based on the two-potential approach within the modified Woods–Saxon potential (TPA-MWS), we systematically studied the half-lives of 32 spherical proton emitters. The results indicate that our calculations are consistent with the experimental data. In addition, we extended this model to predict the half-lives of 17 proton-emitting candidates whose radioactivity is energetically allowed or observed but not yet quantified in NUBASE2020. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, the theoretical framework of the two-potential approach and two different empirical formulae are introduced in detail. The results and discussion are presented in Sect. 3. Finally, a brief summary is provided in Sect. 4. Theoretical framework 1 Two potential approach 2 The proton radioactivity half-life, T 1/2 , which is an important indicator of nuclear stability, is determined by <math display="block" id="M1"><mrow><msub><mi>T</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mrow><mi>ℏ</mi><mi>ln</mi><mn>2</mn></mrow><mtext>Γ</mtext></mfrac><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where ℏ is the reduced Planck constant, and Γ represents the proton radioactivity width. In the framework of the two-potential approach [ 53 53 - 55 55 53-55 ], Γ can be expressed as <math display="block" id="M2"><mrow><mtext>Γ</mtext><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>S</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><mfrac><mrow><msup><mi>ℏ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><mi>F</mi><mi>P</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>μ</mi></mrow></mfrac><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where <math id="M3"><mrow><mi>μ</mi><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>m</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><msub><mi>m</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>/</mo><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>m</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>m</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>≈</mo><mn>938.272</mn><mo>×</mo><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>/</mo><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mtext> M</mtext><mi>e</mi><mi>V</mi><mo>/</mo><msup><mi>c</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow></math> represents the reduced mass of the emitted proton and daughter nucleus, with m p , m d , A p , and A d as the masses of the emitted proton and daughter nucleus, and the mass numbers of the emitted proton and daughter nucleus, respectively. S p is the formation probability of the emitted proton–daughter system, which is related to the probability that the orbit of the emitted proton is empty in the daughter nucleus [ 7 7 ]. In this study, based on Ref. [ 34 34 ], we chose S p =1. F is the normalized factor describing the collision frequency of the emitted proton in the potential barrier. This satisfies the condition <math display="block" id="M4"><mrow><mi>F</mi><mstyle displaystyle="true"><mrow><msubsup><mo>∫</mo><mrow><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>1</mn></msub></mrow><mrow><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></msubsup></mrow></mstyle><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>k</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow></mfrac><mtext>d</mtext><mi>r</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1.</mn></mrow></math> P , the penetration probability of the emitted proton penetrating the barrier, is calculated using the semiclassical WKB approximation. It can be expressed as <math display="block" id="M5"><mrow><mi>P</mi><mo>=</mo><mtext>exp</mtext><mrow><mo>[</mo><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>2</mn><mstyle displaystyle="true"><mrow><msubsup><mo>∫</mo><mrow><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow><mrow><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>3</mn></msub></mrow></msubsup></mrow></mstyle><mi>k</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mtext>d</mtext><mi>r</mi></mrow><mo>]</mo></mrow><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where <math id="M6"><mrow><mi>k</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>=</mo><msqrt><mrow><mfrac><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>μ</mi></mrow><mrow><msup><mi>ℏ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow></mfrac><mrow><mo>|</mo><mrow><msub><mi>Q</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><mo>−</mo><mi>V</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow><mo>|</mo></mrow></mrow></msqrt></mrow></math> is the wavenumber, and V ( r ) is the total interaction potential between the emitted proton and daughter nucleus, with r as the mass center distance between the emitter proton and daughter nucleus. In Eq. 3 and 4, r 1 , r 2 , and r 3 represent the classical turning points. These satisfy the condition <math id="M7"><mrow><mi>V</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>=</mo><mi>V</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>=</mo><mi>V</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>3</mn></msub><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>Q</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub></mrow></math> , where Q p denotes the released energy. It can be obtained by <math display="block" id="M8"><mrow><msub><mi>Q</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><mo>=</mo><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>M</mi><mo>−</mo><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mtext>Δ</mtext><msub><mi>M</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>+</mo><mtext>Δ</mtext><msub><mi>M</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo>+</mo><mi>k</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msup><mi>Z</mi><mi>ε</mi></msup><mo>−</mo><msubsup><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext><mi>ε</mi></msubsup></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where the experimental data of the mass excess Δ M , Δ M d , and Δ M p are taken from the latest atomic mass table NUBASE2020 [ 56 56 ], representing the mass excesses of the parent and daughter nuclei and emitted proton, respectively. The term <math id="M9"><mrow><mi>k</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msup><mi>Z</mi><mi>ε</mi></msup><mo>−</mo><msubsup><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext><mi>ε</mi></msubsup></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></math> denotes the screening effect of atomic electrons, with Z and Z d being the proton number of the parent and daughter nuclei, for Z lt;60, k =13.6 eV, ε =2.408, and for Z ≥ 60, k = 8.7 eV, ε =2.517 [ 57 57 , 58 58 ]. In this study, the total interaction potential V ( r ) was composed of the nuclear potential V N ( r ), Coulomb potential V C ( r ), and centrifugal potential V l ( r ) (see Fig. 1 Fig. 1 ). It can be expressed as <math display="block" id="M10"><mrow><mi>V</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>V</mi><mtext>N</mtext></msub><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>V</mi><mtext>C</mtext></msub><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>V</mi><mtext>l</mtext></msub><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mn>.</mn></mrow></math> For V N ( r ), we chose the modified Woods–Saxon potential [ 49 49 , 50 50 ], which can be parameterized as <math display="block" id="M11"><mrow><msub><mi>V</mi><mtext>N</mtext></msub><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mrow><msub><mi>V</mi><mn>0</mn></msub></mrow><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>+</mo><mtext>exp</mtext><mrow><mo>[</mo><mrow><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>R</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>/</mo><mi>a</mi></mrow><mo>]</mo></mrow></mrow></mfrac><mn>.</mn></mrow></math> Here, R 0 is the effective nuclear radius, which can be expressed as <math display="block" id="M12"><mrow><msub><mi>R</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>R</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>R</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><mo>−</mo><mn>1.37,</mn></mrow></math> where <math id="M13"><mrow><msub><mi>R</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>1.27</mn><msubsup><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> is the radius of the daughter nucleus. R p =0.875 represents the proton radius [ 59 59 ]. a =0.4+0.33 I d is the diffuseness of the nuclear potential [ 60 60 ]. V 0 denotes the potential depth, which can be parameterized as <math display="block" id="M14"><mrow><msub><mi>V</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>=</mo><mo>−</mo><mn>44.16</mn><mrow><mo>[</mo><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>−</mo><mn>0.4</mn><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mi>I</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>I</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow><mo>]</mo></mrow><mfrac><mrow><msubsup><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msubsup><msubsup><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow><mrow><msubsup><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msubsup><mo>+</mo><msubsup><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></mfrac><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where <math id="M15"><mrow><msub><mi>I</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>=</mo><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mi>N</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo>/</mo><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub></mrow></math> and <math id="M16"><mrow><msub><mi>I</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><mo>=</mo><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mi>N</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo>/</mo><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub></mrow></math> are the isospin asymmetries of the daughter nucleus and emitted proton with Z d , N d and Z p , N p being the proton and neutron number of the daughter nucleus and emitted proton, respectively. V C ( r ) is the Coulomb potential, which is taken as the potential of a uniformly charged sphere. It can be expressed as <math display="block" id="M17"><mrow><msub><mi>V</mi><mtext>C</mtext></msub><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>=</mo><mrow><mo>{</mo><mrow><mtable columnalign="left"><mtr columnalign="left"><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><mfrac><mrow><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><msup><mi>e</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>R</mi></mrow></mfrac><mrow><mo>[</mo><mrow><mn>3</mn><mo>−</mo><mfrac><mrow><msup><mi>r</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><msup><mi>R</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow></mfrac></mrow><mo>]</mo></mrow><mo>,</mo></mrow></mtd><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><mi>r</mi><mo>≤</mo><mi>R</mi><mn>,</mn></mrow></mtd></mtr><mtr columnalign="left"><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><mfrac><mrow><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><msup><mi>e</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mi>r</mi></mfrac><mo>,</mo></mrow></mtd><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><mi>r</mi><mo>></mo><mi>R</mi><mn>,</mn></mrow></mtd></mtr></mtable></mrow></mrow></mrow></math> where e 2 ≈ MeV ⋅ fm denotes the square of the electronic elementary charge [ 61 61 ]. R denotes the sharp radius. For convenience, it can be taken as the effective nuclear radius R 0 of the modified Woods–Saxon potential [ 62 62 ]. For the centrifugal potential V l ( r ), we chose the Langer modified form because <math id="M18"><mrow><mi>l</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>l</mi><mo>+</mo><mn>1</mn><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>→</mo><msup><mrow><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>l</mi><mo>+</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow></math> is an essential correction for one-dimensional problems [ 63 63 ]. It can be expressed as <math display="block" id="M19"><mrow><msub><mi>V</mi><mi>l</mi></msub><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mrow><msup><mi>ℏ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><msup><mrow><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>l</mi><mo>+</mo><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>2</mn></mfrac></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>μ</mi><msup><mi>r</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow></mfrac><mn>.</mn></mrow></math> Here, l is the angular momentum removed by the emitted proton, which satisfies the spin–parity conservation laws. It can be expressed as <math display="block" id="M20"><mrow><mi>l</mi><mo>=</mo><mrow><mo>{</mo> <mrow><mtable columnalign="left"><mtr columnalign="left"><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><msub><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow></mtd><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><mtext>f</mtext><mtext>o</mtext><mtext>r</mtext><mtext> </mtext><mtext>e</mtext><mtext>v</mtext><mtext>e</mtext><mtext>n</mtext><mtext> </mtext><msub><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>j</mi></msub><mtext> and </mtext><mi>π</mi><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mn>,</mn></mrow></mtd></mtr><mtr columnalign="left"><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><msub><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>j</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow></mtd><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><mtext>f</mtext><mtext>o</mtext><mtext>r</mtext><mtext> </mtext><mtext>e</mtext><mtext>v</mtext><mtext>e</mtext><mtext>n</mtext><mtext> </mtext><msub><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>j</mi></msub><mtext> and </mtext><mi>π</mi><mo>≠</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mn>,</mn></mrow></mtd></mtr><mtr columnalign="left"><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><msub><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow></mtd><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><mtext>for odd </mtext><msub><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>j</mi></msub><mtext> and </mtext><mi>π</mi><mo>≠</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mn>,</mn></mrow></mtd></mtr><mtr columnalign="left"><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><msub><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>j</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow></mtd><mtd columnalign="left"><mrow><mtext>for odd </mtext><msub><mtext>Δ</mtext><mi>j</mi></msub><mtext> and </mtext><mi>π</mi><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mn>,</mn></mrow></mtd></mtr></mtable></mrow></mrow></mrow></math> where Δ j =| j - j d - j p |, with j , π , j d , π d , j p , π p denoting the spin and parity values of the parent and daughter nuclei and emitted proton, respectively. Two different empirical formulae 2 Universal decay law for proton emission 3 Based on the R-matrix theory of the cluster decay process and the microscopic mechanism of charged-particle emission, Qi et al. [ 64 64 , 65 65 ] proposed a universal decay law that improves the accuracy of cluster radioactivity half-lives. Because proton radioactivity shares the same decay mechanism as α decay and cluster radioactivity, considering the influence of the centrifugal barrier, this formula was later extended to investigate proton radioactivity [ 46 46 ]. It is expressed as <math display="block" id="M21"><mrow><msub><mrow><mtext>log</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mi>T</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mi>a</mi><msup><mi>χ</mi><mo>'</mo></msup><mo>+</mo><mi>b</mi><msup><mi>ρ</mi><mo>'</mo></msup><mo>+</mo><mi>c</mi><mo>+</mo><mi>d</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>l</mi><mo>+</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mi>l</mi><mo>/</mo><msup><mi>ρ</mi><mo>'</mo></msup><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where <math id="M22"><mrow><msup><mi>χ</mi><mo>′</mo></msup><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><msqrt><mrow><mfrac><mrow><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub></mrow><mrow><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><msub><mi>Q</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub></mrow></mfrac></mrow></msqrt></mrow></math> and <math id="M23"><mrow><msup><mi>ρ</mi><mo>′</mo></msup><mo>=</mo><msqrt><mrow><mfrac><mrow><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><msub><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msubsup><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msubsup><mo>+</mo><msubsup><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow><mrow><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>p</mtext></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>A</mi><mtext>d</mtext></msub></mrow></mfrac></mrow></msqrt></mrow></math> . a =0.386, b =-0.502, c =-17.8, and d =2.386 are adjustable parameters. New Geiger–Nuttall law 3 In the form of the G–N law [ 45 45 ], considering the contributions of the orbital angular momentum l and the charge of the daughter nucleus Z d , Chen et al. [ 47 47 ] proposed a two-parameter empirical formula to study proton radioactivity in a unified way, which is expressed as <math display="block" id="M24"><mrow><msub><mrow><mtext>log</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mi>T</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mi>a</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msubsup><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext><mrow><mn>0.8</mn></mrow></msubsup><mo>+</mo><mi>l</mi></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><msubsup><mi>Q</mi><mtext>p</mtext><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msubsup><mo>+</mo><mi>b</mi><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where the parameters a =0.843 and b =-27.194 were determined by fitting 44 experimental data points of the proton radioactivity half-lives from the ground state and/or isomeric state. Results and discussion 1 In this study, we systematically investigated the half-lives of 32 spherical proton emitters based on the TPA–MWS. For comparison, the UFM [ 35 35 ], Coulomb potential and proximity potential model with the Guo-2013 formalism (CPPM) [ 66 66 ], UDLP [ 46 46 ] and NG-N [ 47 47 ] were also used. The detailed numerical results are listed in Table 1 Table 1 . In this table, the first three columns contain the proton emitter, proton radioactivity released energy Q p , and angular momentum l removed by the emitted proton. The last six columns contain the logarithmic form of the experimental half-lives and theoretical half-lives calculated using three models and two different empirical formulae denoted as Exp, TPA-MWS, UFM, CPPM, UDLP, and NG-N. As shown in Table 1 Table 1 , the calculated proton radioactivity half-lives obtained using our model can well reproduce the experimental data. To visually present their deviations, we plotted the differences between the experimental proton radioactivity half-lives and the calculated values using these five models and/or formulae in logarithmic form in Fig. 2 Fig. 2 . From this figure, we can see that the deviations are in the range of ±1. Overall, all of the calculated proton radioactivity half-lives were consistent with the experimental data. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the logarithmic deviation between the experimental and calculated half-lives was large, corresponding to the special case 177 Tl m . Its deviations in logarithmic form were –0.889, -0.802, -1.176, -0.881, and -0.826 using TPA-MWS, UFM, CPPM, UDLP, and NG-N, respectively. Exploring the causes of such a large deviation is crucial for further investigation of proton radioactivity. As we know, the selection of the proton radioactivity released energy Q p and angular momentum l is important in proton radioactivity. In our previous study, we discussed that the effect of angular momentum on the half-life is larger than the released energy [ 67 67 ]. The result indicated that the calculated half-life of proton radioactivity for 177 Tl m was closer to the experimental data when l = 6 [ 67 67 ]. Therefore, we chose l =6 and calculated its logarithm proton radioactivity half-life as -2.779 with a deviation of 0.567, which has a higher consistency with the experimental data than the calculated value of -4.235 when the value of l is set as 5. In addition, the proton number of 177 Tl m is close to the magic number Z = 82, and the proton shell effect may be another reason for this phenomenon. 1 1 Nucleus A Z 1 1 Q p (MeV) 1 1 l 6 1 Log 10 T 1/2 (s) 1 1   1 1   1 1   1 1 Exp 1 1 TPA-MWS 1 1 UFM 1 1 CPPM 1 1 UDLP 1 1 NG-N 1 1 144 Tm 1 1 1.724± 0.016 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M25"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>5.569</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.0007</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.0017</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.962 1 1 –4.937 1 1 –5.138 1 1 –4.687 1 1 –5.212 1 1 145 Tm 1 1 1.754± 0.007 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M26"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>5.499</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.027</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.027</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –5.174 1 1 –5.145 1 1 –5.415 1 1 –4.871 1 1 –5.401 1 1 146 Tm 1 1 0.904± 0.006 1 1 0 1 1 – <math id="M27"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.810</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.105</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.105</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.912 1 1 –0.685 1 1 –0.600 1 1 –0.610 1 1 –1.272 1 1 146 Tm m 1 1 1.214± 0.008 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M28"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>1.137</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.006</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.006</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.660 1 1 –0.645 1 1 –0.695 1 1 –0.896 1 1 –0.999 1 1 147 Tm 1 1 1.072± 0.003 1 1 5 1 1 <math id="M29"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.587</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.022</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.022</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 1.046 1 1 1.058 1 1 1.001 1 1 0.614 1 1 0.681 1 1 147 Tm m 1 1 1.133± 0.006 1 1 2 1 1 – <math id="M30"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>3.444</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.048</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.048</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –3.197 1 1 –3.010 1 1 –2.911 1 1 –2.859 1 1 –2.455 1 1 150 Lu 1 1 1.285± 0.033 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M31"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>1.347</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.029</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.029</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.896 1 1 –0.868 1 1 –0.953 1 1 –1.132 1 1 –1.219 1 1 150 Lu m 1 1 1.305± 0.055 1 1 2 1 1 – <math id="M32"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>4.398</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.005</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.007</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.485 1 1 –4.294 1 1 –4.206 1 1 –4.050 1 1 –3.633 1 1 151 Lu 1 1 1.255± 0.0018 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M33"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.896</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.011</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.011</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.593 1 1 –0.562 1 1 –0.699 1 1 –0.862 1 1 –0.910 1 1 151 Lu m 1 1 1.315± 0.004 1 1 2 1 1 – <math id="M34"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>4.796</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.027</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.027</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.598 1 1 –4.402 1 1 –4.380 1 1 –4.150 1 1 –3.722 1 1 155 Ta 1 1 1.466± 0.015 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M35"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>2.495</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.165</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.225</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –2.154 1 1 –2.112 1 1 –2.321 1 1 –2.269 1 1 –2.397 1 1 156 Ta 1 1 1.036± 0.004 1 1 2 1 1 – <math id="M36"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.826</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.016</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.016</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.645 1 1 –0.444 1 1 –0.300 1 1 –0.624 1 1 –0.180 1 1 156 Ta m 1 1 1.126± 0.009 1 1 5 1 1 <math id="M37"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.933</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.005</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.005</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 1.476 1 1 1.514 1 1 1.479 1 1 0.947 1 1 1.101 1 1 157 Ta 1 1 0.946± 0.010 1 1 0 1 1 – <math id="M38"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.527</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.017</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.017</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.211 1 1 0.050 1 1 –0.072 1 1 –0.038 1 1 –0.657 1 1 159 Re 1 1 1.816± 0.020 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M39"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>4.678</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.092</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.076</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.381 1 1 –4.332 1 1 –4.642 1 1 –4.270 1 1 –4.496 1 1 159 Re m 1 1 1.816± 0.020 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M40"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>4.665</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.087</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.087</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.381 1 1 –4.332 1 1 –4.640 1 1 –4.269 1 1 –4.494 1 1 160 Re 1 1 1.276± 0.007 1 1 2 1 1 – <math id="M41"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>3.163</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.048</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.079</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –3.064 1 1 –2.866 1 1 –2.803 1 1 –2.841 1 1 –2.353 1 1 161 Re 1 1 1.216± 0.005 1 1 0 1 1 – <math id="M42"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>3.357</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.010</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.010</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –3.331 1 1 –3.077 1 1 –2.953 1 1 –2.895 1 1 –3.277 1 1 161 Re m 1 1 1.338± 0.052 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M43"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.678</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.009</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.009</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.465 1 1 –0.416 1 1 –0.599 1 1 –0.806 1 1 –0.747 1 1 164 Ir 1 1 1.844± 0.009 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M44"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>3.947</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.139</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.190</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.172 1 1 –4.110 1 1 –4.376 1 1 –4.114 1 1 –4.247 1 1 165 Ir m 1 1 1.727± 0.007 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M45"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>3.433</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.087</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.087</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –3.374 1 1 –3.311 1 1 –3.611 1 1 –3.408 1 1 –3.482 1 1 166 Ir 1 1 1.167± 0.008 1 1 2 1 1 – <math id="M46"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.824</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.091</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.091</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –1.196 1 1 –0.984 1 1 –0.904 1 1 –1.188 1 1 –0.688 1 1 166 Ir m 1 1 1.347± 0.010 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M47"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.076</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.026</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.026</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.061 1 1 –0.004 1 1 –0.136 1 1 –0.475 1 1 –0.344 1 1 167 Ir 1 1 1.087± 0.004 1 1 0 1 1 – <math id="M48"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>1.120</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.025</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.025</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –1.045 1 1 –0.780 1 1 –0.640 1 1 –0.865 1 1 –1.347 1 1 167 Ir m 1 1 1.262± 0.045 1 1 5 1 1 <math id="M49"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>0.842</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.009</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.009</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 0.865 1 1 0.923 1 1 0.757 1 1 0.348 1 1 0.546 1 1 170 Au 1 1 1.487± 0.012 1 1 2 1 1 – <math id="M50"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>3.487</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.060</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.075</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.104 1 1 –3.895 1 1 –3.927 1 1 –3.845 1 1 –3.254 1 1 170 Au m 1 1 1.767± 0.018 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M51"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>2.971</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.028</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.035</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –3.252 1 1 –3.187 1 1 –3.443 1 1 –3.333 1 1 –3.330 1 1 171 Au 1 1 1.464± 0.010 1 1 0 1 1 – <math id="M52"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>4.652</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.151</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.185</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.803 1 1 –4.535 1 1 –4.527 1 1 –4.298 1 1 –4.460 1 1 171 Au m 1 1 1.718± 0.014 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M53"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>2.587</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.013</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.013</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –2.905 1 1 –2.836 1 1 –3.144 1 1 –3.026 1 1 –2.992 1 1 176 Tl 1 1 1.278± 0.018 1 1 0 1 1 – <math id="M54"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>2.208</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.012</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.025</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –2.287 1 1 –2.012 1 1 –1.910 1 1 –2.059 1 1 –2.361 1 1 177 Tl 1 1 1.173± 0.019 1 1 0 1 1 – <math id="M55"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>1.174</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.121</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.121</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –0.975 1 1 –0.700 1 1 –0.624 1 1 –0.875 1 1 –1.274 1 1 177 Tl m 1 1 1.967± 0.026 1 1 5 1 1 – <math id="M56"><mrow><msubsup><mrow><mn>3.346</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0.076</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>+</mo><mn>0.076</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> 1 1 –4.235 1 1 –4.148 1 1 –4.522 1 1 –4.227 1 1 –4.172 To obtain further insight into the agreement between the experimental and calculated data, the root-mean-square deviation σ was used to estimate the calculated capabilities of the above five models and/or formulae for the proton radioactivity half-lives. It can be defined as <math display="block" id="M57"><mrow><mi>σ</mi><mo>=</mo><msqrt><mrow><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mi>N</mi></mfrac><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>N</mi></munderover><mrow><msup><mrow><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mtext>log</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msubsup><mi>T</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow><mrow><mtext>cal</mtext><mn>.</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msubsup><mo>−</mo><mtext>l</mtext><mi>o</mi><msub><mi>g</mi><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msubsup><mi>T</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow><mrow><mtext>exp</mtext><mn>.</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow></mstyle></mrow></msqrt><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where <math id="M58"><mrow><msub><mrow><mtext>log</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msubsup><mi>T</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow><mrow><mtext>cal</mtext><mn>.</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> and <math id="M59"><mrow><msub><mrow><mtext>log</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msubsup><mi>T</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow><mrow><mtext>exp</mtext><mn>.</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> denote the experimental proton radioactivity half-life and the calculated half-life in logarithmic form for the i -th nucleus, respectively. For comparison, the specific results of σ for the five theoretical models and/or formulae are listed in Table 2 Table 2 . From this table, we can clearly see that the standard deviation σ obtained using TPA-MWS ( <math id="M60"><mrow><msub><mi>σ</mi><mrow><mtext>TPA-MWS</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>0.341</mn></mrow></math> ) was smaller than that of the others. This means that the present model can better reproduce the experimental proton radioactivity half-lives than the others for spherical emitters. 1 1 Type 1 1 TPA-MWS 1 1 UFM 1 1 CPPM 1 1 UDLP 1 1 NG-N 1 1 σ 1 1 0.341 1 1 0.376 1 1 0.410 1 1 0.406 1 1 0.423 A single line of the universal curve for α decay and cluster radioactivities could be manifested by plotting the decimal logarithm of the half-life versus the negative decimal logarithm of the penetration probability through the barrier [ 68 68 , 69 69 ]. Whether this linear correlation can be extended to investigate proton radioactivity is an interesting topic [ 69 69 ]. Therefore, we plotted the correlation between the decimal logarithm of the experimental half-life against the negative decimal logarithm of penetrability in Fig 3 Fig 3 . The penetrability was calculated theoretically in the framework of the semiclassical WKB approximation. As shown, the decimal logarithm of the experimental half-life had a clear linear dependence on the negative decimal logarithm of the penetrability, which implies that our calculations and the present methods are valid and reliable. Considering the good agreement between the experimental half-lives and those calculated using the present model, we extended our model to predict the half-lives of proton radioactivity in the proton number region <math id="M62"><mrow><mn>51</mn><mo>≤</mo><mi>Z</mi><mo>≤</mo><mn>83</mn></mrow></math> . For comparison, the UFM, CPPM, UDLP, and NG-N were also used. The detailed predictions are listed in Table 3 Table 3 . In this table, the first three columns contain the possible proton radioactivity candidates, released energy Q p , and orbital angular momentum l . The last five columns contain the predicted proton radioactivity half-lives obtained using the five models and/or formulae. From this table, we can clearly see that the magnitude of all results using our model is consistent with those calculated using the other four models and/or formulae, validating the predictive power of this method. Taking 116 La as an example, the predictions were –10.256, –10.117, –9.963, –9.000, and –9.126. To further test the reliability of the predictions, we obtained a linear relationship between the quantities <math id="M63"><mrow><msub><mrow><mtext>log</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msubsup><mi>T</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow><mrow><mtext>pre</mtext></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> and <math id="M64"><mrow><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msubsup><mi>Z</mi><mtext>d</mtext><mrow><mn>0.8</mn></mrow></msubsup><mo>+</mo><mi>l</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><msubsup><mi>Q</mi><mtext>p</mtext><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math> based on the NG-N [ 47 47 ] in Fig. 4 Fig. 4 . The results show that the predictions are consistent with the NG-N, which indicates that our predictions of the proton radioactivity half-lives are valid and reliable. These predictions may provide valuable information for when searching for new nuclides with proton radioactivity in the future. 1 1 Nucleus A Z 1 1 Q p MeV 1 1 l 5 1 <math id="M65"><mrow><msub><mrow><mtext>log</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mtext>T</mtext><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msub></mrow></math> (s) 1 1   1 1   1 1   1 1 TPA-MWS 1 1 UFM 1 1 CPPM 1 1 UDLP 1 1 NG-N 1 1 103 Sb 1 1 0.979 1 1 2 1 1 –6.985 1 1 –6.872 1 1 –6.522 1 1 –5.948 1 1 –6.009 1 1 104 Sb 1 1 0.509 1 1 2 1 1 1.373 1 1 8.284 1 1 –0.783 1 1 3.154 1 1 2.187 1 1 105 Sb 1 1 0.331 1 1 2 1 1 4.871 1 1 8.688 1 1 1.503 1 1 8.002 1 1 9.240 1 1 111 Cs 1 1 1.740 1 1 2 1 1 –11.511 1 1 –11.383 1 1 –11.299 1 1 –10.094 1 1 –10.375 1 1 116 La 1 1 1.591 1 1 2 1 1 –10.256 1 1 –10.117 1 1 –9.963 1 1 –9.000 1 1 –9.126 1 1 127 Pm 1 1 0.792 1 1 2 1 1 –0.856 1 1 –0.696 1 1 –0.757 1 1 –0.620 1 1 –0.239 1 1 137 Tb 1 1 0.843 1 1 5 1 1 3.351 1 1 3.342 1 1 2.677 1 1 2.714 1 1 2.974 1 1 146 Tm n 1 1 1.144 1 1 5 1 1 0.150 1 1 0.166 1 1 0.142 1 1 –0.177 1 1 –0.206 1 1 159 Re 1 1 1.606 1 1 0 1 1 –7.019 1 1 –6.772 1 1 –6.749 1 1 –6.227 1 1 –6.381 1 1 165 Ir 1 1 1.547 1 1 0 1 1 –6.051 1 1 –5.791 1 1 –5.779 1 1 –5.387 1 1 –5.530 1 1 169 Ir m 1 1 0.782 1 1 5 1 1 8.750 1 1 8.799 1 1 5.590 1 1 7.362 1 1 8.043 1 1 171 Ir m 1 1 0.403 1 1 5 1 1 14.420 1 1 23.326 1 1 8.456 1 1 20.337 1 1 21.891 1 1 169 Au 1 1 1.947 1 1 0 1 1 –8.421 1 1 –8.156 1 1 –8.249 1 1 –7.572 1 1 –7.478 1 1 172 Au 1 1 0.877 1 1 2 1 1 4.145 1 1 4.357 1 1 2.752 1 1 3.578 1 1 3.983 1 1 172 Au m 1 1 0.627 1 1 2 1 1 7.658 1 1 10.880 1 1 4.835 1 1 9.433 1 1 9.678 1 1 185 Bi 1 1 1.541 1 1 5 1 1 –0.596 1 1 –0.505 1 1 –0.784 1 1 –1.030 1 1 –0.732 1 1 185 Bi n 1 1 1.721 1 1 6 1 1 –0.664 1 1 –0.690 1 1 –1.069 1 1 –1.171 1 1 –1.512 Furthermore, recent studies have shown that nuclear deformation plays an important role in proton radioactivity [ 37 37 , 44 44 , 48 48 , 69 69 ]. Barrier penetration can be affected by the deformation of daughter nuclei during the proton emission process [ 70 70 ]. The deformation effect can result in the reduction of Coulomb and centrifugal barriers, which can influence the penetrability and reduce the theoretical half-lives [ 11 11 ]. In addition, some methods can be used to calculate the proton radioactivity half-lives of deformed proton emitters. In 2016, based on the WKB tunneling approximation, Qian and Ren et al. [ 44 44 ] proposed a simple formula including the deformation term to evaluate the proton radioactivity half-lives of the deformed nuclei. In 2022, the deformation dependence of the screened decay law for proton radioactivity was proposed by Budaca et al. [ 48 48 ] to systematically study proton radioactivity. Inspired by this, we will also discuss the influence of the deformation effect on the estimation of proton radioactivity half-lives in more detail in future work. Summary 1 In summary, we present a systematic study of the proton radioactivity half-lives for 32 spherical proton emitters based on the TPA-MWS, which contains the isospin effect. It was found that the calculated results could reproduce the experimental data well. In addition, we extended this model to predict the proton radioactivity half-lives for 17 possible candidates. The predicted results are in reasonable agreement with those obtained using the UFM, CPPM, UDLP, and NG-N. This study may provide useful and reliable information for when predicting the existence of new proton emitters above the proton drip line, which may be detected in the future. References K. P. Jackson , C. U. Cardinal , H. C. Evans , N. A. Jelley and J. Cerny , 53 Co m : A proton-unstable isomer . Phys. Lett. B 33 , 281 ( 1970 ). doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(70)90269-8 http://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(70)90269-8 53Com: A proton-unstable isomer J. Cerny , J. Esterl , R. Gough and R. Sextro , Confirmed proton radioactivity of 53 Co m . Phys. Lett. B 33 , 284 ( 1970 ). doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(70)90270-4 http://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(70)90270-4 Confirmed proton radioactivity of 53Com S. Hofmann , W. Reisdorf , G. Münzenberg et al. , proton radioactivity of 151 Lu . Z. Phys. A 305 , 111 ( 1982 ). doi: 10.1007/BF01415018 http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01415018 proton radioactivity of 151Lu O. Klepper , T. Batsch , S. Hofmann et al. , Direct and beta-delayed proton decay of very neutron-deficient rare-earth isotopes produced in the reaction 58 Ni+ 92 Mo . Z. Phys. A 305 , 125 ( 1982 ). doi: 10.1007/BF01415019 http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01415019 Direct and beta-delayed proton decay of very neutron-deficient rare-earth isotopes produced in the reaction 58Ni+92Mo D. S. Delion , R. J. Liotta , R. Wyss , Systematics of Proton Emission . Phy. Rev. Lett. 96 , 072501 ( 2006 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.072501 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.072501 Systematics of Proton Emission B. Blank , M. J. G. Borge , Nuclear structure at the proton drip line: Advances with nuclear decay studies . Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 60 , 403 ( 2008 ). doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2007.12.001 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2007.12.001 Nuclear structure at the proton drip line: Advances with nuclear decay studies H. F. Zhang , Y. J. Wang , J. M. Dong et al. , Concise methods for proton radioactivity . J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 37 , 085107 ( 2010 ). doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/37/8/085107 http://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/37/8/085107 Concise methods for proton radioactivity J. L. Chen , X. H. Li , J H Cheng et al. , Systematic study of proton radioactivity based on Gamow-like model with a screened electrostatic barrier . J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 46 , 065107 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ab1a56 http://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ab1a56 Systematic study of proton radioactivity based on Gamow-like model with a screened electrostatic barrier D. S. Delion , Universal decay rule for reduced widths . Phys. Rev. C 80 , 024310 ( 2009 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.024310 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80.024310 Universal decay rule for reduced widths M. Karny , K. P. Rykaczewski , R. K. Grzywacz et al. , Shell structure beyond the proton drip line studied via proton emission from deformed 141 Ho . Phys. Lett. B 664 , 52 ( 2008 ). doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.04.056 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.04.056 Shell structure beyond the proton drip line studied via proton emission from deformed 141Ho J. H. Cheng , J. L. Chen , J. G. Deng et al. , Systematic study of proton emission half-lives within the two-potential approach with Skyrme-Hartree-Fock . Nucl. Phys. A 997 , 121717 ( 2020 ). doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.121717 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.121717 Systematic study of proton emission half-lives within the two-potential approach with Skyrme-Hartree-Fock Z. X. Zhang , J. M. Dong , A formula for half-life of proton radioactivity . Chin. Phys. C 42 , 014104 ( 2018 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/42/1/014104 http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/42/1/014104 A formula for half-life of proton radioactivity Y. Y. Xu , H. M. Liu , D. X. Zhu et al. , An improved formula for the favored α decay half-lives . Eur. Phys. J. A 58 , 16 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00666-1 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00666-1 An improved formula for the favored α decay half-lives Y. Y. Xu , D. X. Zhu , X. Chen et al. , A unified formula for α decay half-lives . Eur. Phys. J. A 58 , 163 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00812-9 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00812-9 A unified formula for α decay half-lives Y. T. Zou , X. Pan , H. M. Liu et al. , Systematic studies on α decay half-lives of neptunium isotopes . Phys. Scr. 96 , 075301 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/abf795 http://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/abf795 Systematic studies on α decay half-lives of neptunium isotopes J.G. Deng , H.F. Zhang , Analytic formula for estimating the α -particle preformation factor . Phys. Rev. C 102 , 044314 ( 2020 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.044314 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.044314 Analytic formula for estimating the α-particle preformation factor J. G. Deng , H. F. Zhang , Correlation between α -particle preformation factor and α decay energy . Phys. Lett. B 816 , 136247 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136247 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136247 Correlation between α-particle preformation factor and α decay energy N. Wan , C. Xu , Z. Z. Ren , α -decay half-life screened by electrons . Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27 , 149 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-016-0150-2 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-016-0150-2 α-decay half-life screened by electrons Z. Z. Ren , C. Xu , Z. J. Wang , New perspective on complex cluster radioactivity of heavy nuclei . Phys. Rev. C 70 , 034304 ( 2004 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.034304 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.034304 New perspective on complex cluster radioactivity of heavy nuclei D. M. Deng , Z. Z. Ren , Systematics of α -preformation factors in closed-shell regions . Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27(6) , 150 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-016-0151-1 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-016-0151-1 Systematics of α-preformation factors in closed-shell regions D.N. Basu , P.R. Chowdhury , C. Samanta , Folding model analysis of proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters . Phys. Rev. C 72 , 051601 ( 2005 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.051601 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.051601 Folding model analysis of proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters D. X. Zhu , Y. Y. Xu , H. M. Liu et al. , Two-proton radioactivity of the excited state within the Gamowlike and modified Gamow-like models . Nucl. Sci. Tech. 33 , 122 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01116-9 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-022-01116-9 Two-proton radioactivity of the excited state within the Gamowlike and modified Gamow-like models D. X. Zhu , M. Li , Y. Y. Xu et al. , Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within various versions of proximity formalisms . Phys. Scr. 97 , 095304 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/ac8585 http://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac8585 Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within various versions of proximity formalisms F. Z. Xing , J. P. Cui , Y. Z. Wang et al. , Two-proton radioactivity of ground and excited states within a unified fission model . Chin. Phys. C 45 , 124105 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac2425 http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/ac2425 Two-proton radioactivity of ground and excited states within a unified fission model D. S. Delion , S. A. Ghinescu , Two-proton emission systematics . Phys. Rev. C 105 , L031301 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L031301 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L031301 Two-proton emission systematics H. M. Liu , X. Pan , Y. T. Zou et al. , Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within a Gamow-like model . Chin. Phys. C 45 , 044110 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abe10f http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/abe10f Systematic study of two-proton radioactivity within a Gamow-like model H. F. Zhang , Y. Z. Wang , J. M. Dong et al. , Theoretical study on spherical proton emission . Sci. China Ser. G-Phys. Mech. Astron. 52 , 1536 - 1541 ( 2009 ). doi: 10.1007/s11433-009-0204-0 http://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-009-0204-0 Theoretical study on spherical proton emission K. P. Santhosh , I. Sukumaran , Decay of Z= 82 - 102 heavy nuclei via emission of one-proton and two-proton halo nuclei . Pramana J. Phys. 92 , 6 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1007/s12043-018-1672-4 http://doi.org/10.1007/s12043-018-1672-4 Decay of Z= 82 - 102 heavy nuclei via emission of one-proton and two-proton halo nuclei L. Zhou , S. M. Wang , D. Q. Fang et al. , Recent progress in two-proton radioactivity . Nucl. Sci. Tech. 33 , 105 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01091-1 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-022-01091-1 Recent progress in two-proton radioactivity Y. Z. Wang , F. Z. Xing , Y. Xiao et al. , An improved semi-empirical relationship for cluster radioactivity . Chin. Phys. C 45 , 044111 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abe112 http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/abe112 An improved semi-empirical relationship for cluster radioactivity Y. J. Ren , Z. Z. Ren , New Geiger-Nuttall law of odd-Z nuclei and long-lived island beyond the stable line . Nucl. Sci. Tech. 24 , 050518 ( 2013 ). doi: 10.13538/j.1001-8042/nst.2013.05.018 http://doi.org/10.13538/j.1001-8042/nst.2013.05.018 New Geiger-Nuttall law of odd-Z nuclei and long-lived island beyond the stable line M. Bhattacharya , G. Gangopadhyay , Microscopic calculation of half lives of spherical proton emitters . Phys. Lett. B 651 , 263 ( 2007 ). doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.012 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.012 Microscopic calculation of half lives of spherical proton emitters Y. B. Qian , Z. Z. Ren , D. D. Ni , Z. Q. Sheng , Half-lives of proton emitters with a deformed density-dependent model . Chin. Phys. Lett. 27 , 112301 ( 2010 ). doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/27/11/112301 http://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/27/11/112301 Half-lives of proton emitters with a deformed density-dependent model M. Balasubramaniam , N. Arunachalam , Proton and α -radioactivity of spherical proton emitters . Phys. Rev. C 71 , 014603 ( 2005 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.014603 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.71.014603 Proton and α-radioactivity of spherical proton emitters J. M. Dong , H. F. Zhang , W. Zuo et al. , Unified fission model for proton emission . Chin. Phys. C 34 , 182 ( 2010 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/34/2/005 http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/34/2/005 Unified fission model for proton emission A. Zdeb , M. Warda , C. M. Petrache et al. , Proton emission half-lives within a Gamow-like model . Eur. Phys. J. A 52 , 323 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/i2016-16323-7 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16323-7 Proton emission half-lives within a Gamow-like model K. P. Santhosh , I. Sukumaran , Description of proton radioactivity using the Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei . Phys. Rev. C 96 , 034619 ( 2017 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.034619 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.034619 Description of proton radioactivity using the Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei C. L. Guo , G. L. Zhang , Analysis of proton radioactivity of nuclei by using proximity potential with a new universal function . Eur. Phys. J. A 50 , 187 ( 2014 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/i2014-14187-5 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14187-5 Analysis of proton radioactivity of nuclei by using proximity potential with a new universal function C. L. Guo , G. L. Zhang , X. Y. Le , Study of the universal function of nuclear proximity potential from density-dependent nucleon–nucleon interaction . Nucl. Phys. A 897 , 54 ( 2013 ). doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.10.003 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.10.003 Study of the universal function of nuclear proximity potential from density-dependent nucleon–nucleon interaction J. M. Dong , H. F. Zhang , G. Royer , Proton radioactivity within a generalized liquid drop model . Phys. Rev. C 79 , 054330 ( 2009 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.054330 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.79.054330 Proton radioactivity within a generalized liquid drop model Y. Z. Wang , J. P. Cui , Y. L. Zhang et al. , Competition between α decay and proton radioactivity of neutron-deficient nuclei . Phys. Rev. C 95 , 014302 ( 2017 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.014302 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.95.014302 Competition between α decay and proton radioactivity of neutron-deficient nuclei Y. Q. Xin , J. G. Deng , H. F. Zhang , Proton radioactivity within the generalized liquid drop model with various versions of proximity potentials . Commun. Theor. Phys. 73 , 065301 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/abf5e6 http://doi.org/10.1088/1572-9494/abf5e6 Proton radioactivity within the generalized liquid drop model with various versions of proximity potentials J. L. Chen , X. H. Li , X. J. Wu et al. , Systematic study on proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters within two-potential approach . Eur. Phys. J. A 57 , 305 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00618-1 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00618-1 Systematic study on proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters within two-potential approach Y. B. Qian , Z. Z. Ren , Calculations on decay rates of various proton emissions . Eur. Phys. J. A 52 , 68 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/i2016-16068-3 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16068-3 Calculations on decay rates of various proton emissions H. Geiger , J. M. Nuttall , The ranges of the α particles from various radioactive substances and a relation between range and period of transformation . Philos. Mag. 22 , 613 ( 1911 ). doi: 10.1080/14786441008637156 http://doi.org/10.1080/14786441008637156 The ranges of the α particles from various radioactive substances and a relation between range and period of transformation C. Qi , D. S. Delion , R. J. Liotta , R. Wyss , Effects of formation properties in one-proton radioactivity . Phys. Rev. C 85 , 011303 ( 2012 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.011303 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.011303 Effects of formation properties in one-proton radioactivity J. L. Chen , J. Y. Xu , J. G. Deng et al. , New Geiger-Nuttall law for proton radioactivity . Eur. Phys. J. A 55 , 214 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12927-7 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12927-7 New Geiger-Nuttall law for proton radioactivity R. Budaca , A. I. Budaca , Deformation dependence of the screened decay law for proton emission . Nucl. Phys. A 1017 , 122355 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122355 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122355 Deformation dependence of the screened decay law for proton emission N. Wang , W. Scheid , Quasi-elastic scattering and fusion with a modified Woods-Saxon potential . Phys. Rev. C 78 , 014607 ( 2008 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014607 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014607 Quasi-elastic scattering and fusion with a modified Woods-Saxon potential N. Wang , K. Zhao , W. Scheid et al. , Fusion-fission reactions with a modified Woods-Saxon potential . Phys. Rev. C 77 , 014603 ( 2008 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.014603 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.77.014603 Fusion-fission reactions with a modified Woods-Saxon potential F. Saidi , M. R. Oudih , M. Fellah , N. H. Allal , Cluster decay investigation within a modified Woods–Saxon potential . Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30 , 1550150 ( 2015 ). doi: 10.1142/S0217732315501503 http://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732315501503 Cluster decay investigation within a modified Woods–Saxon potential M. R. Oudih , M. Ouhachi , M. Fellah , N. H. Allal , Investigation of alpha decay half-lives within a modified Woods–Saxon potential . Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 31 , 2250009 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1142/S0218301322500094 http://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301322500094 Investigation of alpha decay half-lives within a modified Woods–Saxon potential S. A. Gurvitz , G. Kalbermann , Decay width and the shift of a quasistationary state . Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 , 262 - 265 ( 1987 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.262 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.262 Decay width and the shift of a quasistationary state X. D. Sun , P. Guo , X. H. Li , Systematic study of α decay half-lives for even-even nuclei within a two-potential approach . Phys. Rev. C 93 , 034316 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034316 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034316 Systematic study of α decay half-lives for even-even nuclei within a two-potential approach X. D. Sun , P. Guo , X. H. Li , Systematic study of favored α -decay half-lives of closed shell odd- A and doubly-odd nuclei related to ground and isomeric states . Phys. Rev. C 94 , 024338 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024338 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024338 Systematic study of favored α-decay half-lives of closed shell odd-A and doubly-odd nuclei related to ground and isomeric states F. G. Kondev , M. Wang , W. J. Huang et al. , The NUBASE2020 evaluation of nuclear physics properties . Chin. Phys. C 45 , 030001 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddae http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/abddae The NUBASE2020 evaluation of nuclear physics properties V. Y. Denisov , H. Ikezoe , α -nucleus potential for α -decay and sub-barrier fusion . Phys. Rev. C 72 , 064613 ( 2005 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064613 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064613 α-nucleus potential for α-decay and sub-barrier fusion K. N. Huang , M. Aoyagi , M. H. Chen et al. , Neutral-atom electron binding energies from relaxed-orbital relativistic Hartree-Fock-Slater calculations 2 ≤ Z ≤ 106 . At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 18 , 243 ( 1976 ). doi: 10.1016/0092-640X(76)90027-9 http://doi.org/10.1016/0092-640X(76)90027-9 Neutral-atom electron binding energies from relaxed-orbital relativistic Hartree-Fock-Slater calculations 2 ≤ Z ≤ 106 M. R. Oudih , M. Fellah , N. H. Allal , Theoretical Study of Proton Radioactivity . Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phys. 84 1022 - 1026 ( 2020 ). doi: 10.3103/S1062873820080237 http://doi.org/10.3103/S1062873820080237 Theoretical Study of Proton Radioactivity M. R. Pahlavani , S. A. Alavi , N. Tahanipour , Effect of nuclear deformation on the potential barrier and alpha-decay half-lives of superheavy nuclei . Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28 , 1350065 ( 2013 ). doi: 10.1142/S021773231350065X http://doi.org/10.1142/S021773231350065X Effect of nuclear deformation on the potential barrier and alpha-decay half-lives of superheavy nuclei O. A. P. Tavares , E. L. Medeiros , A simple description of cluster radioactivity . Phys. Scr. 86 , 015201 ( 2012 ). doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/86/01/015201 http://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/86/01/015201 A simple description of cluster radioactivity G. Naveya , S. I. A. Philominraj , A. Stephen , Study on alpha decay chains of Z = 122 superheavy nuclei with deformation effects and Langer modification . arXiv preprint arXiv 1810 , 04421 ( 2018 ). doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.04421 http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04421 Study on alpha decay chains of Z = 122 superheavy nuclei with deformation effects and Langer modification J. J. Morehead , Asymptotics of radial wave equations . J. Math. Phys. 36 , 5431 ( 1995 ). doi: 10.1063/1.531270 http://doi.org/10.1063/1.531270 Asymptotics of radial wave equations C. Qi , F. R. Xu , R. J. Liotta , R. Wyss , Universal Decay Law in Charged-Particle Emission and Exotic Cluster Radioactivity . Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 072501 ( 2009 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.072501 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.072501 Universal Decay Law in Charged-Particle Emission and Exotic Cluster Radioactivity C. Qi , F. R. Xu , R. J. Liotta et al. , Microscopic mechanism of charged-particle radioactivity and generalization of the Geiger-Nuttall law . Phys. Rev. C 80 , 044326 ( 2009 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.044326 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80.044326 Microscopic mechanism of charged-particle radioactivity and generalization of the Geiger-Nuttall law J. G. Deng , X. H. Li , J. L. Chen et al. , Systematic study of proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters within various versions of proximity potential formalisms . Eur. Phys. J. A 55 , 58 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12728-0 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12728-0 Systematic study of proton radioactivity of spherical proton emitters within various versions of proximity potential formalisms Y.Y. Xu , X.Y. Hu , D.X. Zhu et al. , Systematic study of proton radioactivity half-lives . Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34 , 30 ( 2023 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-023-01178-3 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-023-01178-3 Systematic study of proton radioactivity half-lives D. N. Poenaru , R. A. Gherghescu , W. Greiner , Single universal curve for cluster radioactivities and α decay . Phys. Rev. C 83 , 014601 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014601 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014601 Single universal curve for cluster radioactivities and α decay A. Adel and A. R. Abdulghany , Proton radioactivity and α -decay of neutron-deficient nuclei . Phys. Scr. 96 , 125314 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/ac33f6 http://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac33f6 Proton radioactivity and α-decay of neutron-deficient nuclei L. J. Qi , D. M. Zhang , S. Luo et al. , Systematic calculations of cluster radioactivity half-lives in trans-lead nuclei . Chin. Phys. C 47 ( 1 ), 014101 ( 2023 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac94bd http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/ac94bd Systematic calculations of cluster radioactivity half-lives in trans-lead nuclei All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Lin-Jing Qi, De-Xing Zhu, Yang-Yang Xu, Song Luo and Xiao-Hua Li. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Dong-Meng Zhang, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. 10.1007/s41365-023-01201-7 This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 12175100 and 11975132), the Construct Program of the Key Discipline in Hunan Province, the Research Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province, China (Nos. 21B0402 and 18A237), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (No. 2018JJ2321), the Innovation Group of Nuclear and Particle Physics in USC, the Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation, China (No. ZR2019YQ01), the Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for Postgraduates (No. CX20220993), and the Opening Project of Cooperative Innovation Center for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology and Equipment, University of South China (No. 2019KFZ10). 2022-11-19 2023-02-16 2023-02-18 2023-04-19 2023-06-07 © China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. (Science Press), Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, ChineseNuclear Society and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Nuclear Science and Techniques. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41365-023-01201-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41365-023-01201-7 . Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. 2023 38408134 The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Science Data Bank at https://www.doi.org/10.57760/sciencedb.j00186.00058 and http://resolve.pid21.cn/31253.11.sciencedb.j00186.00058. Data Availability Statement Nuclear Science and Techniques 4 34