Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js

Calculations of the α-decay properties of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes

  • The α-decay properties of even-Z nuclei with Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 are predicted. We employ the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM), Royer's formula, and universal decay law (UDL) to calculate the α-decay half-lives. By comparing the theoretical calculations with the experimental data of known nuclei from Fl to Og, we confirm that all the employed methods can reproduce the α-decay half-lives well. The preformation factor Pα and α-decay energy Qα show that 298,304,314,316,324,326,338,348120, 304,306,318,324,328,338122, and 328,332,340,344124 might be stable. The α-decay half-lives show a peak at Z = 120, N = 184, and the peak vanishes when Z = 122, 124, 126. Based on detailed analysis of the competition between α-decay and spontaneous fission, we predict that nuclei nearby N = 184 undergo α-decay. The decay modes of 287339120, 294339122, 300339124, and 306339126 are also presented.
  • α-decay is one of the main decay modes of superheavy nuclei (SHN). It was first observed by Rutherford and explained as a quantum tunneling process independently by Gamow [1] and Condon and Gurney [2]. Theα-decay properties reflect information on the nuclear structure and nuclear stability. In experiments, α-decay chains are commonly used to identify the newly synthesized SHN. To detect the “island of stability” [3-14], many SHN have been synthesized using the hot fusion reaction [15] and cold fusion reaction [16]. As the existence and stability of SHN can be mainly attributed to shell effects, it is important to evaluate the magic numbers carefully and calculate the α-decay properties accurately [17-21].

    Many theoretical approaches have been proposed to describe the α-decay process, such as the shell model, fission-like model, and cluster model [22-25]. Many semiclassical models have been employed to reproduce the α-decay half-lives, such as the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) [26-28], Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) [29], unified fission model (UFM) [30], and density-dependent cluster model (DDCM) [31]. Based on the Geiger-Nuttall law [32], many empirical relationships, such as the Viola-Seaborg formula [33, 34], Brown formula [35], Royer's formula [36], and universal decay law (UDL) [37, 38] have also been proposed to calculate the α-decay half-life. These methods provide a very good description of the tunnelling of the α-particle across the Coulomb barrier for heavy and super heavy nuclei. While it is difficult to describe α-decay in a fully microscopic way, many works have considered microscopic modifications in the α-decay calculations [39-46].

    In this work, we use the GLDM with shell correction, Royer's formula and UDL to calculate the α-decay half-lives of even-Z superheavy nuclei with Z = 120, 122, 124, 126. In the framework of the GLDM, two methods are adopted to calculate the α-preformation factor. In the first method, the α-preformation factor is considered as a constant, which is fitted from the experimental half-lives, for each type of nuclei (even-even, odd-A, odd-odd). The second method involves the use of the cluster formation model (CFM) [47-50]. We adopt the updated Weizsäcker-Skyrme-4 (WS4) model to calculate Qα [51], as the accuracy of the WS4 model has been generally certified [52]. To predict the decay modes, two modified shell-induced Swiatecki's formula are used to calculate the theoretical SF half-lives. One empirical relation was formulated by Santhosh and Nithya (KPS) [53, 54], while the other was modified by Bao et al. [55].

    This paper is structured as follows. Sec. 2 introduces the theoretical framework. The results and corresponding discussion are presented in Sec. 3. The conclusions are presented in the last section.

    2.1.1   GLDM

    In the framework of the GLDM, the decay width is defined as λ = Pαν0P. The Wenzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation is used to calculate the barrier penetrability P,

    P=exp[2hRoutRin2B(r)(E(r)E(sphere))dr],

    (1)

    where Esphere is the ground state energy of the parent nucleus. E(Rin) = E(Rout) = Qexpα, B(r) = μ, where the parameter μ is the reduced mass of the daughter nucleus and α-particle.

    Pα is the α-preformation factor, and ν0 is the assault frequency that is calculated by [56]

    ν0=12R2EαMα,

    (2)

    where Mα is the mass, Eα is the kinetic energy of the α particle that has been corrected for recoil, and R is the radius of the parent nucleus.

    The model considers shell correction, which is shape-dependent as defined below, [57]

    Eshell=Esphereshell(12.6α2)eα2,

    (3)

    where α2=(δR)2/a2 is the root mean square of the deviation, which includes all types of deformation, for the particle surface from the sphere. With increase in the distortion of the nucleus, the complete shell correction energy becomes zero owing to the attenuating factor eα2.

    The term Esphereshell is defined as

    Esphereshell=cEsh,

    (4)

    which represents the shell correction for a spherical nucleus. Esh is the shell correction energy, which can be calculated by the Strutinsky process [58]. The Strutinsky calculations use the smoothing parameter γ=1.2ω0 and order p = 6 of the Gauss-Hermite polynomials, where ω0=41A1/3 is the mean distance between the gross shells. The parameter c is scaled to adapt the separation of the binding energy between the macroscopic part and microscopic correction [59].

    2.1.2   The α-preformation factor

    The α-preformation factor Pα is adopted from two methods. The first involves considering the same preformation factor for certain type of nuclei [60, 61]. The experimental Pα values are extracted from nuclei with N 152, Z 82, a least squares fit to the experimental α-decay half-lives is performed, and the Pα values, Pα = 0.33 (even-even), Pα = 0.05 (odd-A), and Pα = 0.01 (odd-odd) are obtained. These results are consistent with those extracted from the GLDM in Ref. [62].

    Another method to obtain the α-preformation factor involves the use of the CFM [47-50],

    Pα=EfαE,

    (5)

    where Efα is the formation energy of the α particle, and E is the total energy combining the intrinsic energy for the α particle and the interaction energy between the α particle and daughter nucleus.

    The energy Efα is calculated from the separation energies[48, 49],

    Efα={2Sp+2SnSc(eveneven),2Sp+S2nSc(evenodd),S2p+2SnSc(oddeven),S2p+S2nSc(oddodd),

    (6)

    E=Sc(A,Z),

    (7)

    where S2n is the two-neutron separation energy, S2p is the two-proton separation energy, and Sc is the α-particle separation energy,

    S2n(A,Z)=B(A,Z)B(A2,Z),

    (8)

    S2p(A,Z)=B(A,Z)B(A2,Z2),

    (9)

    Sc(A,Z)=B(A,Z)B(A4,Z2),

    (10)

    where B is the binding energy. The binding energy can be calculated from the nucleus excess mass ΔM. Hence, S2p, S2n, and Sc can be written as,

    S2p(A,Z)=ΔM(A2,Z2)ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMp,

    (11)

    S2n(A,Z)=ΔM(A2,Z)ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMn,

    (12)

    Sc(A,Z)=ΔM(A4,Z2)ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMp+2ΔMn.

    (13)
    2.1.3   Empirical formulas

    Royer's formula fits different types of nuclei to calculate the α-decay half-lives [36]. For even-even nuclei, this formula fits 131 even-even nuclei, with a root mean square (RMS) deviation of 0.285,

    log10[T1/2(s)]=25.311.1629A1/6Z1/2+1.5864Z/Qα.

    (14)

    For the subset of 106 even-odd nuclei, the following equation was obtained (RMS deviation = 0.39),

    log10[T1/2(s)]=26.651.0859A1/6Z1/2+1.5848Z/Qα.

    (15)

    For odd-even nuclei, 86 nuclei were adopted with a RMS deviation of 0.36,

    log10[T1/2(s)]=25.681.1423A1/6Z1/2+1.592Z/Qα.

    (16)

    For odd-odd nuclei, 50 nuclei were used (RMS deviation = 0.35),

    log10[T1/2(s)]=29.481.113A1/6Z1/2+1.6971Z/Qα.

    (17)

    The UDL were also adopted to calculate the α-decay half-lives [37, 38],

    log10[T1/2(s)]=aZαZdAQα+bAZαZd(A1/3d+A1/3α)+c,

    (18)

    where A=AdAαAd+Aα, a=0.4314, b=−0.4087, and c=−25.7725, which can be determined from the experimental data.

    The spontaneous fission half-lives are calculated using semi-empirical formulas based on the Swiatecki formula [63]. One formula was modified by Santhosh and Nithya [54] (KPS), while the other was reported by Bao et al. [55]. Both empirical relations considered the isospin effect (NZN+Z), fissionability parameter (Z2A) , and shell effect [53-55, 64].

    The KPS formula is defined as follows [53, 54],

    log10(T1/2(yr))=aZ2A+b(Z2A)2+c(NZN+Z)+d(NZN+Z)2+eEshell+f,

    (19)

    where a = −43.25203, b = 0.49192, c = 3674.3927, d = −9360.6, e = 0.8930, and f = 578.56058. Eshell is the shell correction energy from the FRDM [65].

    The modified empirical formula reported by Bao et al. is determined as follows [55],

    log10[T1/2(yr)]=c1+c2(Z2(1kI2)A)+c3(Z2(1kI2)A)2+c4Esh+hi,

    (20)

    where Z2/(1kI2)A is the fissionability parameter considering the isospin effect. The constant k = 2.6 [36]. The coefficients c1 = 1174.353441, c2 = −47.666855, c3 = 0.471307, and c4 = 3.378848, which were fitted from 45 even-even nuclei. The blocking effect is also considered by parameter hi, where heo = 2.609374 (even-odd), hoe = 2.619768 (odd-even), hoo = heo + hoe (odd-odd), and hee = 0 (even-even). The shell correction energy Esh is derived from Ref. [65].

    Table 1 presents the α-decay half-lives of known nuclei from Fl to Og calculated with the GLDM, UDL, and Royer's formula. These nuclei are regarded as the “upper super heavy region” [66] and are produced by hot-fusion reactions. The Pα adopted in the GLDM is obtained via a least squares fit to the experimental half-lives for known SHN from N 152 and Z 82. The experimental Qα values are derived from Ref. [67]. The standard deviation was used to compare the calculation results and experimental values,

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Experimental and theoretical α-decay half-lives of known SHN from Fl to Og. The theoretical results are calculated using Royer's formula, the UDL, and the GLDM with and without shell corrections by inputting the experimental Qα [67]. The Pα adopted in the GLDM is a constant, which is fitted from the experimental data (Pα = 0.33 for even-even nuclei, Pα = 0.05 for odd-A nuclei, and Pα = 0.01 for odd-odd nuclei). Here, σ represents the standard deviation between the experimental results and theoretical calculations obtained with Eq. (21).
    Ele.A Qexp.α/MeVTexp.1/2/sT1/2/sT1/2/sT1/2/sT1/2/s
    RoyerUDLGLDMGLDMshell
    Fl28510.56 ± 0.051.00×1011.60×1014.27×1026.61×1026.57×102
    28610.35 ± 0.041.20×1011.08×1011.62×1013.16×1023.37×102
    28710.17 ± 0.024.80×1011.68×1005.25×1015.67×1016.67×101
    28810.07 ± 0.036.60×1015.93×1011.01×1001.47×1011.99×101
    2899.98 ± 0.021.90×1005.34×1001.82×1001.60×1002.55×100
    Mc28710.76 ± 0.053.70×1024.70×1022.60×1024.06×1023.85×102
    28810.65 ± 0.011.74×1014.49×1015.05×1023.57×1013.47×101
    28910.49 ± 0.053.30×1012.23×1011.37×1011.67×1011.82×101
    29010.41 ± 0.046.50×1012.00×1002.25×1011.26×1001.51×100
    Lv29011 ± 0.078.30×1038.94×1031.21×1023.00×1032.88×103
    29110.89 ± 0.071.90×1028.94×1022.31×1023.41×1023.51×102
    29210.78 ± 0.021.30×1023.01×1024.46×1028.84×1031.04×102
    29310.71 ± 0.025.70×1022.41×1016.72×1028.01×1021.04×101
    Ts29311.32 ± 0.052.20×1026.89×1033.57×1036.59×1036.65×103
    29411.18 ± 0.045.10×1027.25×1027.98×1036.45×1027.23×102
    Og29411.82 ± 0.065.80×1043.67×1044.26×1041.64×1041.60×104
    0.380.390.350.35
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    σ=[1n1ni=1(log10Ttheo.1/2log10Texp.1/2)2]1/2.

    (21)

    The σ values of Royer's formula, the UDL, the GLDM, and GLDM with shell correction are 0.38, 0.39, 0.35, and 0.35, respectively. The effect of shell correction is more obvious for nuclei near the predicted shell-closure [68]. For example, considering 289Fl, T1/2α increases from 0.32 s to 0.51 s.

    The results obtained with the GLDM are systematically lower than the experimental data. After shell correction, the calculated α-decay half-lives increase slightly. The σ values indicate that using the experimentally fitted constant Pα, the models with and without shell correction can all accurately calculate the α-decay half-lives.

    The α-preformation factors are calculated using the CFM [48, 49]. Both Qα and Pα are extracted from the WS4 model [51]. The Qα and Pα values of even-even nuclei from Z = 120 to 126 are plotted in Fig. 1. The Pα values of even-even nuclei are approximately 0.1–0.3, which satisfies the general experimental features [49, 69]. The figure shows that the Qα values decrease with larger neutron numbers, indicating an increase in the stability of the nucleus against α-decay. Both Qα and Pα exhibit very similar trends.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Preformation factors of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 even-even nuclei.

    The discontinuity of Qα represents the position of the magic numbers. Moreover, in the region where the Pα value is relatively small, the nuclei are regarded to be stable [70]. However the positions of the Pα discontinuity and Qα discontinuity are not particularly the same, as shown in the case of Z = 120 even-even isotopes in Fig. 1(a). This is because the Pα value of one nucleus is calculated based on five nuclei around it. The Pα values may contain the complex structure information of several nearby nuclei.

    We use the Qα and Pα values to predict the stable nuclei for Z = 122 – 126 elements. Figure 1(a) shows that for Z = 120, the nuclei around N = 178, 184, 194, 196, 204, 206, 218, 228 might be stable. For Z = 122, the nuclei with N = 182, 184, 196, 202, 206, 216 show higher stability. For Z = 124 nuclei, the nuclei with N = 204, 208, 216, 220 might be stable against α-decay. Figure 1(d) indicates that Z = 126 even-even nuclei have no obvious shell structures. This is because the Qα of Z = 126 isotopes are smoothly continuous, and the Pα distribution has no dips. It can be observed that when the atomic number increases, the neutron numbers of stable nuclei also increase. It appears that with larger proton numbers, the nucleus requires more neutrons to remain stable.

    Figure 2 presents the α-decay half-lives of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 even-even isotopes. This figure shows that at N < 186, the α-decay half-lives increase with increasing nuclear mass. This phenomenon indicates that this might correspond to a shell closure at N < 186. For Z = 120 nuclei, there is one obvious peak at N = 184. However, this peak gradually disappears with increase in the Z values. The α-decay half-lives indicate that the neutron magic number at N = 184 is not observed at Z = 122, 124, 126. This phenomenon is consistent with the results shown by Pα and Qα in Fig. 1. For Z = 122, nuclei with N = 182 and 184 both have relatively longer half-lives, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The corresponding Qα and Pα values in Fig. 1(b) are relatively small. Hence, for element Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes, 304120 would probably be stable and might be a shell closure.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) The α-decay half-lives of even-even isotopes of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126.

    The α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of 287339120, 294339122, 300339124, and 306339126 are presented in Table 2. To identify the decay modes of unknown nuclei, the competition between α-decay and spontaneous fission was studied [71-77]. The predicted decay modes of nuclei are presented in the last column of Table 2. Both SF equations consider the shell correction. However, the SF half-lives calculated with Eq. (20) would be more sensitive to the nuclear structures [78]. The results show that most nuclei at around N = 184 would undergo α-decay. With a larger Z, the competition between α-decay and SF would be more obvious. By comparing the α-decay and SF half-lives, we predict that 287307120 would undergo α-decay, 308309120 would undergo both α-decay and SF, and 310339120 would experience SF. The 294309122 isotopes would undergo α-decay, 310314122 would have two decay modes, and 315339122 would experience SF. For Z = 124 nuclei, 300315124 would have α-decay, 316320,326,327,331124 would have both α-decay and SF, and 321325,328330,332339124 would undergo SF. As the competition between the two decay modes for the 328339126 isotopes is very obvious, 328335,337,339126 would experience both α-decay and SF, 336,338126 would undergo SF, and 306327126 would undergo α-decay.

    Table 2

    Table 2.  Theoretical α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of the 287339120, 294339122, 300339124, and 306339126 isotopes. The Qth.α values are extracted from the WS4 model [51]. Columns (4-7) present the α-decay half-lives calculated using Royer's formula, the UDL, the GLDM with shell correction, and the GLDM with shell correction and CFM Pα, respectively. Columns (8-9) present the SF half-lives calculated using Eq. (20) [55] and the KPS equation [54], respectively. The last column lists the predicted decay modes.
    ZAQWS4α/MeVTα1/2/sTα1/2/sTα1/2/sTα1/2/sTSF1/2/sTSF1/2/sDecay mode
    RoyerUDLGLDMGLDMPαEq. (20) [55]KPS [54]
    12028713.857.90E-078.96E-081.12E-064.46E-073.39E+031.03E+10α
    28813.732.18E-071.53E-072.62E-073.39E-071.68E+015.83E+10α
    28913.711.31E-061.55E-071.79E-067.17E-071.70E+054.73E+11α
    29013.702.23E-071.59E-072.82E-073.72E-073.45E+021.16E+12α
    29113.512.96E-063.73E-073.75E-061.50E-065.63E+053.19E+12α
    29213.475.65E-074.36E-076.66E-078.62E-071.76E+034.86E+12α
    29313.404.41E-065.77E-075.28E-062.26E-061.65E+071.20E+13α
    29413.241.43E-061.19E-061.52E-062.06E-064.25E+049.94E+12α
    29513.277.26E-069.91E-077.85E-063.29E-061.50E+081.10E+13α
    29613.348.30E-076.79E-078.70E-071.20E-062.84E+042.66E+12α
    29713.141.21E-051.72E-061.15E-055.32E-062.37E+071.18E+12α
    29813.013.56E-063.24E-062.90E-064.24E-066.02E+043.40E+11α
    29913.266.56E-069.08E-076.53E-062.72E-062.58E+077.66E+10α
    30013.327.82E-076.59E-077.40E-071.01E-063.80E+036.33E+09α
    30113.061.48E-052.18E-061.23E-055.16E-061.67E+068.84E+08α
    30212.895.21E-065.02E-063.73E-065.17E-061.17E+023.73E+07α
    30312.814.53E-057.25E-063.15E-051.25E-053.32E+042.91E+06α
    30412.768.79E-068.89E-065.13E-067.12E-065.87E-015.42E+04α
    30513.284.74E-066.64E-073.56E-061.45E-063.40E-015.27E+02α
    30613.797.76E-085.94E-087.03E-089.47E-082.24E-064.88E+00α
    30713.521.48E-061.94E-071.15E-064.72E-076.53E-058.70E-02α
    30812.972.84E-062.76E-061.44E-061.78E-063.20E-081.65E-03α/SF
    30912.169.06E-041.81E-042.97E-041.09E-049.87E-063.64E-05α/SF
    31011.504.88E-037.72E-031.10E-031.60E-031.32E-093.28E-07SF
    31111.201.68E-014.73E-023.47E-021.71E-022.43E-074.25E-09SF
    31211.222.27E-024.02E-024.20E-036.97E-031.79E-112.22E-11SF
    31311.024.26E-011.29E-017.60E-023.96E-025.39E-092.24E-13SF
    31410.763.29E-016.99E-014.84E-021.75E-015.15E-138.66E-16SF
    3159.431.73E+041.04E+047.27E+033.99E+031.86E-106.38E-18SF
    3169.191.71E+047.33E+048.70E+032.09E+043.41E-142.04E-20SF
    3179.934.26E+022.05E+021.28E+027.12E+017.92E-129.44E-23SF
    3189.936.57E+012.01E+021.88E+013.53E+011.74E-152.26E-25SF
    3199.847.35E+023.70E+022.20E+021.28E+024.86E-137.81E-28SF
    3209.683.68E+021.28E+031.18E+022.16E+021.75E-161.53E-30SF
    3219.536.77E+033.97E+032.34E+031.36E+033.02E-136.21E-33SF
    3229.373.44E+031.40E+041.28E+032.42E+031.12E-168.92E-36SF
    3239.121.48E+051.07E+056.75E+043.73E+046.68E-142.01E-38SF
    Continued on next page
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    In addition, the FRDM Qα values are used to calculate theα-decay half-lives, and the results are shown in Table 3. For Z = 120 isotopes, 296307120 would undergo α-decay, 308120 may undergo both α-decay and SF, and 309327120 would experience SF. For Z = 122 nuclei, 300309,311122 would probably undergo α-decay, 310,312315122 may exhibit both decay modes, and 316331122 experience SF. The 304315,317124 isotopes probably undergo α-decay, 316,318320,327124 have both α-decay and SF, and 321335124 would undergo SF. For Z = 126, 308322,325126 may experience α-decay, 323,326335,337,339126 would probably exhibit two decay modes, and 324,336,338126 would exhibit the SF decay mode. As the adopted Qα values are different in Table 2 and Table 3, the theoretical α-decay half-lives are slightly different. However, the predicted decay modes from the two sets of results are mostly similar. Both the FRDM and WS4 models are capable of providing accurate Qα values for the α-decay calculations.

    Table 3

    Table 3.  Theoretical α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of the 296327120, 300331122, 304335124, and 308339126 isotopes. The Qth.α values are extracted from the FRDM [65]. Columns (4-5) present the α-decay half-lives calculated with the GLDM with shell correction, and the GLDM with shell correction and CFM Pα. Columns (6,7) present the SF half-lives calculated using Eq. (20) [55] and the KPS equation [54], respectively. The last column lists the predicted decay modes.
    ZAQFRDMα/MeVTα1/2/sTα1/2/sTSF1/2/sTSF1/2/sDecay mode
    GLDMGLDMPαEq. (20) [55]KPS [54]
    12029613.593.80E-077.40E-072.84E+042.66E+12α
    29713.651.99E-061.30E-062.37E+071.18E+12α
    29813.241.42E-062.43E-066.02E+043.40E+11α
    29913.741.31E-065.87E-072.58E+077.66E+10α
    30013.692.20E-073.75E-073.80E+036.33E+09α
    30113.621.83E-061.01E-061.67E+068.84E+08α
    30213.563.18E-075.64E-071.17E+023.73E+07α
    30313.522.23E-061.24E-063.32E+042.91E+06α
    30413.552.38E-074.41E-075.87E-015.42E+04α
    30514.261.16E-075.92E-083.40E-015.27E+02α
    30614.271.49E-082.06E-082.24E-064.88E+00α
    30713.628.93E-072.30E-076.53E-058.70E-02α
    30812.971.58E-061.58E-063.20E-081.65E-03α/SF
    30911.762.43E-038.53E-049.87E-063.64E-05SF
    31011.284.18E-037.11E-031.32E-093.28E-07SF
    31110.765.08E-013.32E-012.43E-074.25E-09SF
    31210.719.12E-021.87E-011.79E-112.22E-11SF
    31310.502.09E+001.33E+005.39E-092.24E-13SF
    Continued on next page
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    We compare our results with those calculated with phenomenological models [78, 79]. For the α-decay half-lives obtained using the FRDM Qα values, we compare our results with those reported in Ref. [78]. The α-decay and SF half-lives are shown in Fig. 3. The results show that the SF half-lives calculated with the modified equation reported by Bao et al. [55, 78] have an even-odd effect. This is because in Eq. (20), the blocking effect of the unpaired nucleon has been considered. The SF half-lives show a trend where with increasing A, the log10TSF1/2 values decrease. It appears that the SF equation modified by Refs. [55, 78] is more sensitive to the nuclear strucure [78]. The α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives reported in this work and Ref. [78] are slightly different. This is because we use FRDM2016 [65] to calculate the Qα and shell correction, whereas the results from Ref. [78] are based on FRDM1995 [80]. However, the predicted decay modes for most nuclei are the same.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) The α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of 296308120, 300310122, and 304312124. The log10Tα1/2 values calculated using the UDL and GLDM are derived from Ref. [78].

    We compare the α-decay half-lives calculated with the WS4 Qα values with the results from Ref. [79]. The α-decay half-lives from this work and Ref. [79] are presented in Fig. 4. The log10Tα1/2 values obtained using the Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei (CPPMDN) and Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) are from Ref. [79]. The SF half-lives calculated with the KPS equation [54] are exactly the same, and decrease smoothly with increasing A for Z = 120, 122 isotopes. For Z = 124, 126 nuclei, the SF half-lives also show a similar trend, which is consistent with the results presented in Fig. 3. For the 319322124 and 326329126 isotopes, the competition between α-decay and SF is obvious, indicating that these nuclei may have two decay modes. The results show that with similar Qα values, different phenomenological models show good consistency.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) The α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of 295309120, 301314122, 307323124, and 313331126. The log10Tα1/2 values calculated with the Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) and Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei (CPPMDN) are from Ref. [79].

    As we use a fully phenomenological approach, we compare our results with those from calculations considering microscopic modifications [45]. As generally known, the Qα values deduced would have an obvious influence on the calculated α-decay half-lives. A 1 MeV change in the Qα value may lead to a change of around three orders of magnitude or more in the log10Tα1/2 value. In Ref. [45], different mass tables are used to calculate Qα, including the WS4 mass table. Hence, we compare our log10Tα1/2 with the log10Tα1/2 value calculated with the WS4 mass model in Ref. [45]. In Fig. 3 from Ref. [45], the log10Tα1/2 values of Z = 120,122,124 nuclei have dips at Nd = 184, where Nd represents the neutron number of the daughter nucleus. In this work, Fig. 2 shows the same trend for the α-decay half-lives. The above discussion indicates that with similar Qα values, the results obtained with the phenomenological approach are highly consistent with the results from calculations considering microscopic modifications [81].

    We used shell correction induced GLDM to calculate the α-decay half-lives of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes. The preformation factor Pα used in the model is of two types, where one is a constant for each type of nuclei, which was adopted from a least-squares fit to the known experimental half-lives (N 152, Z 82). The other type was calculated using the CFM. We compared our calculations with the experimental data for known nuclei from Fl to Og, and found that all the investigated methods could reproduce the α-decay half-lives well. Subsequently, our method was used to predict the α-decay properties of the even-Z SHN from Z = 120 to 126.

    The theoretical Pαvalues calculated using the CFM are very sensitive to the nuclear structure. The Pα and Qα values show similar trends. They both reflect the position of shell structures. However, Pα contains more complex shell structure information as it is adopted from several nearby nuclei. From the Qα and Pα values, we present some nuclei that might be stable, i.e., Z = 120, N = 178, 184, 194, 196, 206, 218, 228; Z = 122, N = 182,184, 196, 202, 206, 216; and Z = 124, N = 204, 208, 216, 220. With larger proton numbers, more neutrons are needed for a nucleus to be stable.

    With the information of the α-decay half-lives, we find that at N = 184, there is no obvious shell structure for Z = 122, 124, 126 isotopes. The 304120 nucleus is predicted to be stable compared with the nearby nuclei. The competition between α-decay and SF is increasing evident from Z = 120 to 126. However, the nuclei at around N = 184 would mostly undergo α-decay. The predicted decay modes for 287339120, 294339122, 300339124, and 306339126 are presented in Table 2.

    We compared our results with other works, including the results obtained with microscopic calculations. The comparisons showed that the phenomenological and microscopic methods can produce highly similar α-decay half-lives, when similar Qα values are adopted. We suggest the selection of suitable Qα values, as the Qα values tend to clearly influence the calculations.

    The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Key Laboratory of Beam Technology of Ministry of Education, Beijing Normal University.

    [1] G. Gamow, Z. Phys., 51: 204 (1928) doi: 10.1007/BF01343196
    [2] R. W. Gurney and E. U. Condon, Nature (London), 122: 439 (1928) doi: 10.1038/122439a0
    [3] A. Sobiczewski, F. A. Gareev, and B. N. Kalinkin, Phys. Lett., 22: 500 (1966) doi: 10.1016/0031-9163(66)91243-1
    [4] V. M. Strutinsky, Nucl. Phys. A, 95: 420 (1967) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(67)90510-6
    [5] W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Ark. Fys., 36: 343 (1967)
    [6] S. G. Nilsson, C. F. Tsang, A. Sobiczewski et al., Nuclear Phys. A, 131: 1 (1969) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(69)90809-4
    [7] U. Mosel and W. Greiner, Z. Phys., 222: 261 (1969) doi: 10.1007/BF01392125
    [8] E. O. Fiset and J. R. Nix, Nuclear Phys. A, 193: 647 (1972) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(72)90346-6
    [9] P. Möller and J. R. Nix, Phys. Rev. Lett., 37: 1461 (1976) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1461
    [10] P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 37: 193 (1996) doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(96)00054-3
    [11] M. Bender, K. Rutz, P. G. Reinhard et al., Phys. Rev. C, 58: 2126 (1998)
    [12] M. Bender, W. Nazazrewicz, and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Lett. B, 515: 42 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00863-2
    [13] V. Yu. Denisov, Phys. At. Nuclei, 68: 1133 (2005) doi: 10.1134/1.1992567
    [14] Y. T. Oganessian, Pure Appl. Chem., 78: 889 (2006) doi: 10.1351/pac200678050889
    [15] Y. T. Oganessian, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 34: R165 (2007) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/34/4/R01
    [16] S. Hofmann and G. Munzenberg, Rev. Modern Phys., 72: 733 (2000) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.72.733
    [17] P. Möller and J. R. Nix, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 20: 1681 (1994) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/20/11/003
    [18] S. Ćwiok, J. Dobaczewski, P. H. Heenen et al., Nucl. Phys. A, 611: 211 (1996) doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(96)00337-5
    [19] K. Rutz, M. Bender, T. Bürvenich et al., Phys. Rev. C, 56: 238 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.238
    [20] A. T. Kruppa, M. Bender, W. Nazarewicz et al., Phys. Rev. C, 61: 034313 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.61.034313
    [21] S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C, 88: 061302 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.061302
    [22] H. J. Mang, Annu. Rev. Part. Sci., 14: 1 (1964) doi: 10.1146/annurev.ns.14.120164.000245
    [23] J. O. Rasmussen, Alpha-, Beta-, and Gamma-Ray, vol. I, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1965)
    [24] D. M. Brink and J. J. Castro, Nucl. Phys. A, 216: 109 (1973) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90521-6
    [25] I. Tonozuka and A. Arima, Nucl. Phys. A, 323: 45 (1979) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(79)90415-9
    [26] G. Royer and B. Remaud, Nucl. Phys. A, 444: 477 (1985) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(85)90464-6
    [27] G. Royer, K. Zbiri, and C. Bonilla, Nucl. Phys. A, 730: 355 (2004) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.010
    [28] G. Royer, Nucl. Phys. A, 848: 279-291 (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.09.009
    [29] K.P. Santhosh and A. Joseph, Pramana, 62: 957 (2004) doi: 10.1007/BF02706143
    [30] J. M. Dong, W. Zuo, J. Z. Gu et al., Phys. Rev. C, 81: 064309 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064309
    [31] C. Xu and Z. Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 74: 014304 (2006)
    [32] H. Geiger and J. M. Nuttall, Philos. Mag., 22: 613 (1911) doi: 10.1080/14786441008637156
    [33] V. E. Viola, G. T. Seaborg, and J. Inorg, Nucl. Chem., 28: 741 (1966) doi: 10.1016/0022-1902(66)80412-8
    [34] A. Sobiczewski, Z. Patyk, and S. Cwiok, Phys. Lett. B, 224: 1 (1989) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(89)91038-1
    [35] B. Alex Brown, Phys. Rev. C, 46: 811 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.46.811
    [36] G. Royer, J. Phys. G, 26: 1149 (2000) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/26/8/305
    [37] C. Qi, F. R. Xu, R. J. Liotta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 103: 072501 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.072501
    [38] C. Qi, F. R. Xu, R. J. Liotta et al., Phys. Rev. C, 80: 044326 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.044326
    [39] D. D. Ni and Z. Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 81: 064318 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064318
    [40] Monika Patial, R.J. Liotta, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. C, 93: 054326 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.054326
    [41] X. D. Sun, P. Guo, and X. H. Li, Phys. Rev. C, 93: 034316 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034316
    [42] X. D. Sun, C. Duan, J. G. Deng et al., Phys. Rev. C, 95: 014319 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.014319
    [43] C. Xu, G. Röpke, P. Schuck et al., Phys. Rev. C, 95: 061306 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.061306
    [44] M. Ismail and A. Adel, Phys. Rev. C, 97: 044301 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044301
    [45] M. Ismail, W.M. Seif, W.M. Tawfik et al., Annals of Physics, 406: 1-13 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2019.03.020
    [46] W. M. Seif, Hisham Anwer, and A. R. Abdulghany, Annals of Physics,, 401: 149-161 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2018.12.002
    [47] S. M. S. Ahmed, R. Yahaya, S. Radiman et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 40: 065105 (2013) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/40/6/065105
    [48] D. Deng, Z. Ren, D. Ni et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 42: 075106 (2015) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/42/7/075106
    [49] D. Deng and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 93: 044326 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.044326
    [50] S. M. S. Ahmed, Nucl. Phys. A, 962: 103 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.03.005
    [51] N. Wang, M. Liu, X. Wu et al., Phys. Lett. B, 734: 215 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.049
    [52] Y. Z. Wang, S. J. Wang, Z. Y. Hou et al., Phys. Rev. C, 92: 064301 (2015)
    [53] K. P. Santhosh, R. K. Biju, and S. Sabina, Nucl. Phys. A, 832: 220 (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.10.160
    [54] K. P. Santhosh and C. Nithya, Phys. Rev. C, 94: 054621 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.054621
    [55] X. J. Bao, S. Q. Guo, H. F. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. C, 95: 034323 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.034323
    [56] H. F. Zhang, G. Royer, and J. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. C, 84: 027303 (2011) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.027303
    [57] W. D. Myers, Droplet Model of Atomic Nuclei, Plenum, New York (1977)
    [58] V. M. Strutinsky and F. A. Ivanjuk, Nucl. Phys. A, 255: 405 (1975) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(75)90688-0
    [59] N. Wang, M. Liu, and X. Z. Wu, Phys. Rev. C, 81: 044322 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.044322
    [60] H. F. Zhang and G. Royer, Phys. Rev. C, 77: 054318 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.054318
    [61] D. Ni and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 81: 024315 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.024315
    [62] H.F. Zhang, G. Royer, Y.J. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C, 80: 057301 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.057301
    [63] W. Swiatecki, Phys. Rev., 100: 937 (1955) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.100.937
    [64] C. Xu, Z. Z. Ren, and Y. Q. Guo, Phys. Rev. C, 78: 044329 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.044329
    [65] P. Möller, A.J. Sierk a, T. Ichikawa et al., Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 109: 1-204 (2016)
    [66] S.A. Giuliani, Z. Matheson, W. Nazarewic et al, Colloquium: superheavy elements: oganesson and beyond, Rev. Mod. Phys., 91: 011001 (2019)
    [67] Yu Ts Oganessian, A Sobiczewski, and G M Ter-Akopian, Phys. Scr., 92: 023003 (2017) doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/aa53c1
    [68] Z. S. Ge, C. Li, J. J. Li et al., Phys. Rev. C, 98: 034312 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.034312
    [69] C. Xu and Z. Z. Ren, Nucl. Phys. A, 760: 303 (2005) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.06.011
    [70] M. Ismail and A. Adel, Phys. Rev. C, 86: 014616 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014616
    [71] Y.B. Qian and Z.Z. Ren, Eur. Phys. J. A, 49: 5 (2013) doi: 10.1140/epja/i2013-13005-0
    [72] Y.B. Qian and Z.Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 90: 064308 (2014) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.064308
    [73] Y.B. Qian and Z.Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 94: 064321 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.064321
    [74] K.P. Santhosh, A. Augustine, C. Nithya et al., Nucl. Phys. A, 951: 116 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.03.041
    [75] Y.L. Zhang and Y.Z. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A, 966: 102-112 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.06.005
    [76] J. G. Deng, J. C. Zhao, J. L.Chen et al., Chin. Phys. C, 42: 044102 (2018) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/42/4/044102
    [77] J. Y. Xu, J. L. Chen, J. G. Deng et al., Commun. Theor. Phys., 42: 1328-1334 (2019)
    [78] T. L. Zhao and X. J. Bao, Phys. Rev. C, 98: 064307 (2018)
    [79] K.P. Santhosh and C. Nithya, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 119: 33 (2018) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2017.03.003
    [80] P. Möller, J. Nix, W. Myers et al., At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 59: 185 (1995) doi: 10.1006/adnd.1995.1002
    [81] Z. S. Ge, G. Zhang, S. H. Cheng et al., Eur. Phys. J. A, 55: 166 (2019) doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12864-5
  • [1] G. Gamow, Z. Phys., 51: 204 (1928) doi: 10.1007/BF01343196
    [2] R. W. Gurney and E. U. Condon, Nature (London), 122: 439 (1928) doi: 10.1038/122439a0
    [3] A. Sobiczewski, F. A. Gareev, and B. N. Kalinkin, Phys. Lett., 22: 500 (1966) doi: 10.1016/0031-9163(66)91243-1
    [4] V. M. Strutinsky, Nucl. Phys. A, 95: 420 (1967) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(67)90510-6
    [5] W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Ark. Fys., 36: 343 (1967)
    [6] S. G. Nilsson, C. F. Tsang, A. Sobiczewski et al., Nuclear Phys. A, 131: 1 (1969) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(69)90809-4
    [7] U. Mosel and W. Greiner, Z. Phys., 222: 261 (1969) doi: 10.1007/BF01392125
    [8] E. O. Fiset and J. R. Nix, Nuclear Phys. A, 193: 647 (1972) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(72)90346-6
    [9] P. Möller and J. R. Nix, Phys. Rev. Lett., 37: 1461 (1976) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1461
    [10] P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 37: 193 (1996) doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(96)00054-3
    [11] M. Bender, K. Rutz, P. G. Reinhard et al., Phys. Rev. C, 58: 2126 (1998)
    [12] M. Bender, W. Nazazrewicz, and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Lett. B, 515: 42 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00863-2
    [13] V. Yu. Denisov, Phys. At. Nuclei, 68: 1133 (2005) doi: 10.1134/1.1992567
    [14] Y. T. Oganessian, Pure Appl. Chem., 78: 889 (2006) doi: 10.1351/pac200678050889
    [15] Y. T. Oganessian, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 34: R165 (2007) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/34/4/R01
    [16] S. Hofmann and G. Munzenberg, Rev. Modern Phys., 72: 733 (2000) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.72.733
    [17] P. Möller and J. R. Nix, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 20: 1681 (1994) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/20/11/003
    [18] S. Ćwiok, J. Dobaczewski, P. H. Heenen et al., Nucl. Phys. A, 611: 211 (1996) doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(96)00337-5
    [19] K. Rutz, M. Bender, T. Bürvenich et al., Phys. Rev. C, 56: 238 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.238
    [20] A. T. Kruppa, M. Bender, W. Nazarewicz et al., Phys. Rev. C, 61: 034313 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.61.034313
    [21] S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C, 88: 061302 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.061302
    [22] H. J. Mang, Annu. Rev. Part. Sci., 14: 1 (1964) doi: 10.1146/annurev.ns.14.120164.000245
    [23] J. O. Rasmussen, Alpha-, Beta-, and Gamma-Ray, vol. I, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1965)
    [24] D. M. Brink and J. J. Castro, Nucl. Phys. A, 216: 109 (1973) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90521-6
    [25] I. Tonozuka and A. Arima, Nucl. Phys. A, 323: 45 (1979) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(79)90415-9
    [26] G. Royer and B. Remaud, Nucl. Phys. A, 444: 477 (1985) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(85)90464-6
    [27] G. Royer, K. Zbiri, and C. Bonilla, Nucl. Phys. A, 730: 355 (2004) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.010
    [28] G. Royer, Nucl. Phys. A, 848: 279-291 (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.09.009
    [29] K.P. Santhosh and A. Joseph, Pramana, 62: 957 (2004) doi: 10.1007/BF02706143
    [30] J. M. Dong, W. Zuo, J. Z. Gu et al., Phys. Rev. C, 81: 064309 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064309
    [31] C. Xu and Z. Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 74: 014304 (2006)
    [32] H. Geiger and J. M. Nuttall, Philos. Mag., 22: 613 (1911) doi: 10.1080/14786441008637156
    [33] V. E. Viola, G. T. Seaborg, and J. Inorg, Nucl. Chem., 28: 741 (1966) doi: 10.1016/0022-1902(66)80412-8
    [34] A. Sobiczewski, Z. Patyk, and S. Cwiok, Phys. Lett. B, 224: 1 (1989) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(89)91038-1
    [35] B. Alex Brown, Phys. Rev. C, 46: 811 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.46.811
    [36] G. Royer, J. Phys. G, 26: 1149 (2000) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/26/8/305
    [37] C. Qi, F. R. Xu, R. J. Liotta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 103: 072501 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.072501
    [38] C. Qi, F. R. Xu, R. J. Liotta et al., Phys. Rev. C, 80: 044326 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.044326
    [39] D. D. Ni and Z. Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 81: 064318 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064318
    [40] Monika Patial, R.J. Liotta, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. C, 93: 054326 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.054326
    [41] X. D. Sun, P. Guo, and X. H. Li, Phys. Rev. C, 93: 034316 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034316
    [42] X. D. Sun, C. Duan, J. G. Deng et al., Phys. Rev. C, 95: 014319 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.014319
    [43] C. Xu, G. Röpke, P. Schuck et al., Phys. Rev. C, 95: 061306 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.061306
    [44] M. Ismail and A. Adel, Phys. Rev. C, 97: 044301 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044301
    [45] M. Ismail, W.M. Seif, W.M. Tawfik et al., Annals of Physics, 406: 1-13 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2019.03.020
    [46] W. M. Seif, Hisham Anwer, and A. R. Abdulghany, Annals of Physics,, 401: 149-161 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2018.12.002
    [47] S. M. S. Ahmed, R. Yahaya, S. Radiman et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 40: 065105 (2013) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/40/6/065105
    [48] D. Deng, Z. Ren, D. Ni et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 42: 075106 (2015) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/42/7/075106
    [49] D. Deng and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 93: 044326 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.044326
    [50] S. M. S. Ahmed, Nucl. Phys. A, 962: 103 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.03.005
    [51] N. Wang, M. Liu, X. Wu et al., Phys. Lett. B, 734: 215 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.049
    [52] Y. Z. Wang, S. J. Wang, Z. Y. Hou et al., Phys. Rev. C, 92: 064301 (2015)
    [53] K. P. Santhosh, R. K. Biju, and S. Sabina, Nucl. Phys. A, 832: 220 (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.10.160
    [54] K. P. Santhosh and C. Nithya, Phys. Rev. C, 94: 054621 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.054621
    [55] X. J. Bao, S. Q. Guo, H. F. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. C, 95: 034323 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.034323
    [56] H. F. Zhang, G. Royer, and J. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. C, 84: 027303 (2011) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.027303
    [57] W. D. Myers, Droplet Model of Atomic Nuclei, Plenum, New York (1977)
    [58] V. M. Strutinsky and F. A. Ivanjuk, Nucl. Phys. A, 255: 405 (1975) doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(75)90688-0
    [59] N. Wang, M. Liu, and X. Z. Wu, Phys. Rev. C, 81: 044322 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.044322
    [60] H. F. Zhang and G. Royer, Phys. Rev. C, 77: 054318 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.054318
    [61] D. Ni and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 81: 024315 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.024315
    [62] H.F. Zhang, G. Royer, Y.J. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C, 80: 057301 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.057301
    [63] W. Swiatecki, Phys. Rev., 100: 937 (1955) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.100.937
    [64] C. Xu, Z. Z. Ren, and Y. Q. Guo, Phys. Rev. C, 78: 044329 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.044329
    [65] P. Möller, A.J. Sierk a, T. Ichikawa et al., Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 109: 1-204 (2016)
    [66] S.A. Giuliani, Z. Matheson, W. Nazarewic et al, Colloquium: superheavy elements: oganesson and beyond, Rev. Mod. Phys., 91: 011001 (2019)
    [67] Yu Ts Oganessian, A Sobiczewski, and G M Ter-Akopian, Phys. Scr., 92: 023003 (2017) doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/aa53c1
    [68] Z. S. Ge, C. Li, J. J. Li et al., Phys. Rev. C, 98: 034312 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.034312
    [69] C. Xu and Z. Z. Ren, Nucl. Phys. A, 760: 303 (2005) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.06.011
    [70] M. Ismail and A. Adel, Phys. Rev. C, 86: 014616 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014616
    [71] Y.B. Qian and Z.Z. Ren, Eur. Phys. J. A, 49: 5 (2013) doi: 10.1140/epja/i2013-13005-0
    [72] Y.B. Qian and Z.Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 90: 064308 (2014) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.064308
    [73] Y.B. Qian and Z.Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C, 94: 064321 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.064321
    [74] K.P. Santhosh, A. Augustine, C. Nithya et al., Nucl. Phys. A, 951: 116 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.03.041
    [75] Y.L. Zhang and Y.Z. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A, 966: 102-112 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.06.005
    [76] J. G. Deng, J. C. Zhao, J. L.Chen et al., Chin. Phys. C, 42: 044102 (2018) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/42/4/044102
    [77] J. Y. Xu, J. L. Chen, J. G. Deng et al., Commun. Theor. Phys., 42: 1328-1334 (2019)
    [78] T. L. Zhao and X. J. Bao, Phys. Rev. C, 98: 064307 (2018)
    [79] K.P. Santhosh and C. Nithya, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 119: 33 (2018) doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2017.03.003
    [80] P. Möller, J. Nix, W. Myers et al., At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 59: 185 (1995) doi: 10.1006/adnd.1995.1002
    [81] Z. S. Ge, G. Zhang, S. H. Cheng et al., Eur. Phys. J. A, 55: 166 (2019) doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12864-5
  • 加载中

Cited by

1. Liu, J., Zhang, Y., Zhang, F. Review and Prospect of Research on Synthesis of Transuranic Elements by Heavy Actinide Nuclei | [基 于 锕 系 核 合 成 超 铀 元 素 研 究 的 回 顾 与 展 望][J]. Yuanzineng Kexue Jishu/Atomic Energy Science and Technology, 2025, 59(2): 265-281. doi: 10.7538/yzk.2024.youxian.0472
2. Pavithran, A., Saeed Abdulla, N.P., Preethi-Rajan, M.K. et al. Ternary fission of various Z=120 isotopes with 3H, 4He and 8Be as light charge particle[J]. Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2024.07.001
3. Zhang, M.-H., Zhang, Y.-H., Zou, Y. et al. Predictions of synthesizing elements with Z=119 and 120 in fusion reactions[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 109(1): 014622. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.014622
4. Prathapan, K., Deneshan, P., Preethi Rajan, M.K. et al. Theoretical predictions on the decay modes of 282−310Og[J]. Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2023.08.001
5. Belhaddouf, R., Oudih, M.R., Fellah, M. et al. Alpha decay and cluster radioactivity investigation of actinide nuclei[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2023, 32(8): 2350043. doi: 10.1142/S021830132350043X
6. Rashidpour, Z., Naderi, D. An empirical formula for the alpha decay half-lives[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2023, 32(6): 2350028. doi: 10.1142/S0218301323500283
7. Seif, W.M., Abdulghany, A.R., Nasr, A. Macroscopic-microscopic calculations of the ground state properties of Z = 120 isotopes and their α -decay chains[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2022, 31(8): 2250074. doi: 10.1142/S0218301322500744
8. Fan, J., Xu, C. Exploring the half-lives of extremely long-lived α emitters[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2022, 46(5): 054105. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac500d
9. Sharma, P.K., Jain, A., Saxena, G. New modified empirical formulae for favoured and unfavoured α-decay[J]. Nuclear Physics A, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122318

Figures(4) / Tables(3)

Get Citation
Zhishuai Ge, Gen Zhang, Shihui Cheng, Yu. S. Tsyganov and Feng-Shou Zhang. Calculations of the α-decay properties of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abab00
Zhishuai Ge, Gen Zhang, Shihui Cheng, Yu. S. Tsyganov and Feng-Shou Zhang. Calculations of the α-decay properties of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abab00 shu
Milestone
Received: 2009-04-30
Article Metric

Article Views(1966)
PDF Downloads(54)
Cited by(9)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of subscription content published by CPC, the users need to request permission from CPC, unless the content was published under an Open Access license which automatically permits that type of reuse.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Calculations of the α-decay properties of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes

    Corresponding author: Feng-Shou Zhang, fszhang@bnu.edu.cn
  • 1. Key Laboratory of Beam Technology of Ministry of Education, Beijing Radiation Center, Beijing 100875, China
  • 2. Key Laboratory of Beam Technology of Ministry of Education, College of Nuclear Science and Technology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
  • 3. Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU- 141980 Dubna, Russian Federation
  • 4. Center of Theoretical Nuclear Physics, National Laboratory of Heavy Ion Accelerator of Lanzhou, Lanzhou 730000, China

Abstract: The α-decay properties of even-Z nuclei with Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 are predicted. We employ the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM), Royer's formula, and universal decay law (UDL) to calculate the α-decay half-lives. By comparing the theoretical calculations with the experimental data of known nuclei from Fl to Og, we confirm that all the employed methods can reproduce the α-decay half-lives well. The preformation factor Pα and α-decay energy Qα show that 298,304,314,316,324,326,338,348120, 304,306,318,324,328,338122, and 328,332,340,344124 might be stable. The α-decay half-lives show a peak at Z = 120, N = 184, and the peak vanishes when Z = 122, 124, 126. Based on detailed analysis of the competition between α-decay and spontaneous fission, we predict that nuclei nearby N = 184 undergo α-decay. The decay modes of 287339120, 294339122, 300339124, and 306339126 are also presented.

    HTML

    1.   Introduction
    • α-decay is one of the main decay modes of superheavy nuclei (SHN). It was first observed by Rutherford and explained as a quantum tunneling process independently by Gamow [1] and Condon and Gurney [2]. Theα-decay properties reflect information on the nuclear structure and nuclear stability. In experiments, α-decay chains are commonly used to identify the newly synthesized SHN. To detect the “island of stability” [3-14], many SHN have been synthesized using the hot fusion reaction [15] and cold fusion reaction [16]. As the existence and stability of SHN can be mainly attributed to shell effects, it is important to evaluate the magic numbers carefully and calculate the α-decay properties accurately [17-21].

      Many theoretical approaches have been proposed to describe the α-decay process, such as the shell model, fission-like model, and cluster model [22-25]. Many semiclassical models have been employed to reproduce the α-decay half-lives, such as the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) [26-28], Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) [29], unified fission model (UFM) [30], and density-dependent cluster model (DDCM) [31]. Based on the Geiger-Nuttall law [32], many empirical relationships, such as the Viola-Seaborg formula [33, 34], Brown formula [35], Royer's formula [36], and universal decay law (UDL) [37, 38] have also been proposed to calculate the α-decay half-life. These methods provide a very good description of the tunnelling of the α-particle across the Coulomb barrier for heavy and super heavy nuclei. While it is difficult to describe α-decay in a fully microscopic way, many works have considered microscopic modifications in the α-decay calculations [39-46].

      In this work, we use the GLDM with shell correction, Royer's formula and UDL to calculate the α-decay half-lives of even-Z superheavy nuclei with Z = 120, 122, 124, 126. In the framework of the GLDM, two methods are adopted to calculate the α-preformation factor. In the first method, the α-preformation factor is considered as a constant, which is fitted from the experimental half-lives, for each type of nuclei (even-even, odd-A, odd-odd). The second method involves the use of the cluster formation model (CFM) [47-50]. We adopt the updated Weizsäcker-Skyrme-4 (WS4) model to calculate Qα [51], as the accuracy of the WS4 model has been generally certified [52]. To predict the decay modes, two modified shell-induced Swiatecki's formula are used to calculate the theoretical SF half-lives. One empirical relation was formulated by Santhosh and Nithya (KPS) [53, 54], while the other was modified by Bao et al. [55].

      This paper is structured as follows. Sec. 2 introduces the theoretical framework. The results and corresponding discussion are presented in Sec. 3. The conclusions are presented in the last section.

    2.   Theoretical framework

      2.1.   α-Decay

      2.1.1.   GLDM
    • In the framework of the GLDM, the decay width is defined as λ = Pαν0P. The Wenzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation is used to calculate the barrier penetrability P,

      P=exp[2hRoutRin2B(r)(E(r)E(sphere))dr],

      (1)

      where Esphere is the ground state energy of the parent nucleus. E(Rin) = E(Rout) = Qexpα, B(r) = μ, where the parameter μ is the reduced mass of the daughter nucleus and α-particle.

      Pα is the α-preformation factor, and ν0 is the assault frequency that is calculated by [56]

      ν0=12R2EαMα,

      (2)

      where Mα is the mass, Eα is the kinetic energy of the α particle that has been corrected for recoil, and R is the radius of the parent nucleus.

      The model considers shell correction, which is shape-dependent as defined below, [57]

      Eshell=Esphereshell(12.6α2)eα2,

      (3)

      where α2=(δR)2/a2 is the root mean square of the deviation, which includes all types of deformation, for the particle surface from the sphere. With increase in the distortion of the nucleus, the complete shell correction energy becomes zero owing to the attenuating factor eα2.

      The term Esphereshell is defined as

      Esphereshell=cEsh,

      (4)

      which represents the shell correction for a spherical nucleus. Esh is the shell correction energy, which can be calculated by the Strutinsky process [58]. The Strutinsky calculations use the smoothing parameter γ=1.2ω0 and order p = 6 of the Gauss-Hermite polynomials, where ω0=41A1/3 is the mean distance between the gross shells. The parameter c is scaled to adapt the separation of the binding energy between the macroscopic part and microscopic correction [59].

    • 2.1.2.   The α-preformation factor
    • The α-preformation factor Pα is adopted from two methods. The first involves considering the same preformation factor for certain type of nuclei [60, 61]. The experimental Pα values are extracted from nuclei with N 152, Z 82, a least squares fit to the experimental α-decay half-lives is performed, and the Pα values, Pα = 0.33 (even-even), Pα = 0.05 (odd-A), and Pα = 0.01 (odd-odd) are obtained. These results are consistent with those extracted from the GLDM in Ref. [62].

      Another method to obtain the α-preformation factor involves the use of the CFM [47-50],

      Pα=EfαE,

      (5)

      where Efα is the formation energy of the α particle, and E is the total energy combining the intrinsic energy for the α particle and the interaction energy between the α particle and daughter nucleus.

      The energy Efα is calculated from the separation energies[48, 49],

      Efα={2Sp+2SnSc(eveneven),2Sp+S2nSc(evenodd),S2p+2SnSc(oddeven),S2p+S2nSc(oddodd),

      (6)

      E=Sc(A,Z),

      (7)

      where S2n is the two-neutron separation energy, S2p is the two-proton separation energy, and Sc is the α-particle separation energy,

      S2n(A,Z)=B(A,Z)B(A2,Z),

      (8)

      S2p(A,Z)=B(A,Z)B(A2,Z2),

      (9)

      Sc(A,Z)=B(A,Z)B(A4,Z2),

      (10)

      where B is the binding energy. The binding energy can be calculated from the nucleus excess mass ΔM. Hence, S2p, S2n, and Sc can be written as,

      S2p(A,Z)=ΔM(A2,Z2)ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMp,

      (11)

      S2n(A,Z)=ΔM(A2,Z)ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMn,

      (12)

      Sc(A,Z)=ΔM(A4,Z2)ΔM(A,Z)+2ΔMp+2ΔMn.

      (13)
    • 2.1.3.   Empirical formulas
    • Royer's formula fits different types of nuclei to calculate the α-decay half-lives [36]. For even-even nuclei, this formula fits 131 even-even nuclei, with a root mean square (RMS) deviation of 0.285,

      log10[T1/2(s)]=25.311.1629A1/6Z1/2+1.5864Z/Qα.

      (14)

      For the subset of 106 even-odd nuclei, the following equation was obtained (RMS deviation = 0.39),

      log10[T1/2(s)]=26.651.0859A1/6Z1/2+1.5848Z/Qα.

      (15)

      For odd-even nuclei, 86 nuclei were adopted with a RMS deviation of 0.36,

      log10[T1/2(s)]=25.681.1423A1/6Z1/2+1.592Z/Qα.

      (16)

      For odd-odd nuclei, 50 nuclei were used (RMS deviation = 0.35),

      log10[T1/2(s)]=29.481.113A1/6Z1/2+1.6971Z/Qα.

      (17)

      The UDL were also adopted to calculate the α-decay half-lives [37, 38],

      log10[T1/2(s)]=aZαZdAQα+bAZαZd(A1/3d+A1/3α)+c,

      (18)

      where A=AdAαAd+Aα, a=0.4314, b=−0.4087, and c=−25.7725, which can be determined from the experimental data.

    • 2.2.   Spontaneous fission

    • The spontaneous fission half-lives are calculated using semi-empirical formulas based on the Swiatecki formula [63]. One formula was modified by Santhosh and Nithya [54] (KPS), while the other was reported by Bao et al. [55]. Both empirical relations considered the isospin effect (NZN+Z), fissionability parameter (Z2A) , and shell effect [53-55, 64].

      The KPS formula is defined as follows [53, 54],

      log10(T1/2(yr))=aZ2A+b(Z2A)2+c(NZN+Z)+d(NZN+Z)2+eEshell+f,

      (19)

      where a = −43.25203, b = 0.49192, c = 3674.3927, d = −9360.6, e = 0.8930, and f = 578.56058. Eshell is the shell correction energy from the FRDM [65].

      The modified empirical formula reported by Bao et al. is determined as follows [55],

      log10[T1/2(yr)]=c1+c2(Z2(1kI2)A)+c3(Z2(1kI2)A)2+c4Esh+hi,

      (20)

      where Z2/(1kI2)A is the fissionability parameter considering the isospin effect. The constant k = 2.6 [36]. The coefficients c1 = 1174.353441, c2 = −47.666855, c3 = 0.471307, and c4 = 3.378848, which were fitted from 45 even-even nuclei. The blocking effect is also considered by parameter hi, where heo = 2.609374 (even-odd), hoe = 2.619768 (odd-even), hoo = heo + hoe (odd-odd), and hee = 0 (even-even). The shell correction energy Esh is derived from Ref. [65].

    3.   Results and Discussion
    • Table 1 presents the α-decay half-lives of known nuclei from Fl to Og calculated with the GLDM, UDL, and Royer's formula. These nuclei are regarded as the “upper super heavy region” [66] and are produced by hot-fusion reactions. The Pα adopted in the GLDM is obtained via a least squares fit to the experimental half-lives for known SHN from N 152 and Z 82. The experimental Qα values are derived from Ref. [67]. The standard deviation was used to compare the calculation results and experimental values,

      Ele.A Qexp.α/MeVTexp.1/2/sT1/2/sT1/2/sT1/2/sT1/2/s
      RoyerUDLGLDMGLDMshell
      Fl28510.56 ± 0.051.00×1011.60×1014.27×1026.61×1026.57×102
      28610.35 ± 0.041.20×1011.08×1011.62×1013.16×1023.37×102
      28710.17 ± 0.024.80×1011.68×1005.25×1015.67×1016.67×101
      28810.07 ± 0.036.60×1015.93×1011.01×1001.47×1011.99×101
      2899.98 ± 0.021.90×1005.34×1001.82×1001.60×1002.55×100
      Mc28710.76 ± 0.053.70×1024.70×1022.60×1024.06×1023.85×102
      28810.65 ± 0.011.74×1014.49×1015.05×1023.57×1013.47×101
      28910.49 ± 0.053.30×1012.23×1011.37×1011.67×1011.82×101
      29010.41 ± 0.046.50×1012.00×1002.25×1011.26×1001.51×100
      Lv29011 ± 0.078.30×1038.94×1031.21×1023.00×1032.88×103
      29110.89 ± 0.071.90×1028.94×1022.31×1023.41×1023.51×102
      29210.78 ± 0.021.30×1023.01×1024.46×1028.84×1031.04×102
      29310.71 ± 0.025.70×1022.41×1016.72×1028.01×1021.04×101
      Ts29311.32 ± 0.052.20×1026.89×1033.57×1036.59×1036.65×103
      29411.18 ± 0.045.10×1027.25×1027.98×1036.45×1027.23×102
      Og29411.82 ± 0.065.80×1043.67×1044.26×1041.64×1041.60×104
      0.380.390.350.35

      Table 1.  Experimental and theoretical α-decay half-lives of known SHN from Fl to Og. The theoretical results are calculated using Royer's formula, the UDL, and the GLDM with and without shell corrections by inputting the experimental Qα [67]. The Pα adopted in the GLDM is a constant, which is fitted from the experimental data (Pα = 0.33 for even-even nuclei, Pα = 0.05 for odd-A nuclei, and Pα = 0.01 for odd-odd nuclei). Here, σ represents the standard deviation between the experimental results and theoretical calculations obtained with Eq. (21).

      σ=[1n1ni=1(log10Ttheo.1/2log10Texp.1/2)2]1/2.

      (21)

      The σ values of Royer's formula, the UDL, the GLDM, and GLDM with shell correction are 0.38, 0.39, 0.35, and 0.35, respectively. The effect of shell correction is more obvious for nuclei near the predicted shell-closure [68]. For example, considering 289Fl, T1/2α increases from 0.32 s to 0.51 s.

      The results obtained with the GLDM are systematically lower than the experimental data. After shell correction, the calculated α-decay half-lives increase slightly. The σ values indicate that using the experimentally fitted constant Pα, the models with and without shell correction can all accurately calculate the α-decay half-lives.

    • 3.1.   α-preformation factor

    • The α-preformation factors are calculated using the CFM [48, 49]. Both Qα and Pα are extracted from the WS4 model [51]. The Qα and Pα values of even-even nuclei from Z = 120 to 126 are plotted in Fig. 1. The Pα values of even-even nuclei are approximately 0.1–0.3, which satisfies the general experimental features [49, 69]. The figure shows that the Qα values decrease with larger neutron numbers, indicating an increase in the stability of the nucleus against α-decay. Both Qα and Pα exhibit very similar trends.

      Figure 1.  (color online) Preformation factors of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 even-even nuclei.

      The discontinuity of Qα represents the position of the magic numbers. Moreover, in the region where the Pα value is relatively small, the nuclei are regarded to be stable [70]. However the positions of the Pα discontinuity and Qα discontinuity are not particularly the same, as shown in the case of Z = 120 even-even isotopes in Fig. 1(a). This is because the Pα value of one nucleus is calculated based on five nuclei around it. The Pα values may contain the complex structure information of several nearby nuclei.

      We use the Qα and Pα values to predict the stable nuclei for Z = 122 – 126 elements. Figure 1(a) shows that for Z = 120, the nuclei around N = 178, 184, 194, 196, 204, 206, 218, 228 might be stable. For Z = 122, the nuclei with N = 182, 184, 196, 202, 206, 216 show higher stability. For Z = 124 nuclei, the nuclei with N = 204, 208, 216, 220 might be stable against α-decay. Figure 1(d) indicates that Z = 126 even-even nuclei have no obvious shell structures. This is because the Qα of Z = 126 isotopes are smoothly continuous, and the Pα distribution has no dips. It can be observed that when the atomic number increases, the neutron numbers of stable nuclei also increase. It appears that with larger proton numbers, the nucleus requires more neutrons to remain stable.

    • 3.2.   α-decay properties of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes

    • Figure 2 presents the α-decay half-lives of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 even-even isotopes. This figure shows that at N < 186, the α-decay half-lives increase with increasing nuclear mass. This phenomenon indicates that this might correspond to a shell closure at N < 186. For Z = 120 nuclei, there is one obvious peak at N = 184. However, this peak gradually disappears with increase in the Z values. The α-decay half-lives indicate that the neutron magic number at N = 184 is not observed at Z = 122, 124, 126. This phenomenon is consistent with the results shown by Pα and Qα in Fig. 1. For Z = 122, nuclei with N = 182 and 184 both have relatively longer half-lives, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The corresponding Qα and Pα values in Fig. 1(b) are relatively small. Hence, for element Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes, 304120 would probably be stable and might be a shell closure.

      Figure 2.  (color online) The α-decay half-lives of even-even isotopes of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126.

      The α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of 287339120, 294339122, 300339124, and 306339126 are presented in Table 2. To identify the decay modes of unknown nuclei, the competition between α-decay and spontaneous fission was studied [71-77]. The predicted decay modes of nuclei are presented in the last column of Table 2. Both SF equations consider the shell correction. However, the SF half-lives calculated with Eq. (20) would be more sensitive to the nuclear structures [78]. The results show that most nuclei at around N = 184 would undergo α-decay. With a larger Z, the competition between α-decay and SF would be more obvious. By comparing the α-decay and SF half-lives, we predict that 287307120 would undergo α-decay, 308309120 would undergo both α-decay and SF, and 310339120 would experience SF. The 294309122 isotopes would undergo α-decay, 310314122 would have two decay modes, and 315339122 would experience SF. For Z = 124 nuclei, 300315124 would have α-decay, 316320,326,327,331124 would have both α-decay and SF, and 321325,328330,332339124 would undergo SF. As the competition between the two decay modes for the 328339126 isotopes is very obvious, 328335,337,339126 would experience both α-decay and SF, 336,338126 would undergo SF, and 306327126 would undergo α-decay.

      ZAQWS4α/MeVTα1/2/sTα1/2/sTα1/2/sTα1/2/sTSF1/2/sTSF1/2/sDecay mode
      RoyerUDLGLDMGLDMPαEq. (20) [55]KPS [54]
      12028713.857.90E-078.96E-081.12E-064.46E-073.39E+031.03E+10α
      28813.732.18E-071.53E-072.62E-073.39E-071.68E+015.83E+10α
      28913.711.31E-061.55E-071.79E-067.17E-071.70E+054.73E+11α
      29013.702.23E-071.59E-072.82E-073.72E-073.45E+021.16E+12α
      29113.512.96E-063.73E-073.75E-061.50E-065.63E+053.19E+12α
      29213.475.65E-074.36E-076.66E-078.62E-071.76E+034.86E+12α
      29313.404.41E-065.77E-075.28E-062.26E-061.65E+071.20E+13α
      29413.241.43E-061.19E-061.52E-062.06E-064.25E+049.94E+12α
      29513.277.26E-069.91E-077.85E-063.29E-061.50E+081.10E+13α
      29613.348.30E-076.79E-078.70E-071.20E-062.84E+042.66E+12α
      29713.141.21E-051.72E-061.15E-055.32E-062.37E+071.18E+12α
      29813.013.56E-063.24E-062.90E-064.24E-066.02E+043.40E+11α
      29913.266.56E-069.08E-076.53E-062.72E-062.58E+077.66E+10α
      30013.327.82E-076.59E-077.40E-071.01E-063.80E+036.33E+09α
      30113.061.48E-052.18E-061.23E-055.16E-061.67E+068.84E+08α
      30212.895.21E-065.02E-063.73E-065.17E-061.17E+023.73E+07α
      30312.814.53E-057.25E-063.15E-051.25E-053.32E+042.91E+06α
      30412.768.79E-068.89E-065.13E-067.12E-065.87E-015.42E+04α
      30513.284.74E-066.64E-073.56E-061.45E-063.40E-015.27E+02α
      30613.797.76E-085.94E-087.03E-089.47E-082.24E-064.88E+00α
      30713.521.48E-061.94E-071.15E-064.72E-076.53E-058.70E-02α
      30812.972.84E-062.76E-061.44E-061.78E-063.20E-081.65E-03α/SF
      30912.169.06E-041.81E-042.97E-041.09E-049.87E-063.64E-05α/SF
      31011.504.88E-037.72E-031.10E-031.60E-031.32E-093.28E-07SF
      31111.201.68E-014.73E-023.47E-021.71E-022.43E-074.25E-09SF
      31211.222.27E-024.02E-024.20E-036.97E-031.79E-112.22E-11SF
      31311.024.26E-011.29E-017.60E-023.96E-025.39E-092.24E-13SF
      31410.763.29E-016.99E-014.84E-021.75E-015.15E-138.66E-16SF
      3159.431.73E+041.04E+047.27E+033.99E+031.86E-106.38E-18SF
      3169.191.71E+047.33E+048.70E+032.09E+043.41E-142.04E-20SF
      3179.934.26E+022.05E+021.28E+027.12E+017.92E-129.44E-23SF
      3189.936.57E+012.01E+021.88E+013.53E+011.74E-152.26E-25SF
      3199.847.35E+023.70E+022.20E+021.28E+024.86E-137.81E-28SF
      3209.683.68E+021.28E+031.18E+022.16E+021.75E-161.53E-30SF
      3219.536.77E+033.97E+032.34E+031.36E+033.02E-136.21E-33SF
      3229.373.44E+031.40E+041.28E+032.42E+031.12E-168.92E-36SF
      3239.121.48E+051.07E+056.75E+043.73E+046.68E-142.01E-38SF
      Continued on next page

      Table 2.  Theoretical α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of the 287339120, 294339122, 300339124, and 306339126 isotopes. The Qth.α values are extracted from the WS4 model [51]. Columns (4-7) present the α-decay half-lives calculated using Royer's formula, the UDL, the GLDM with shell correction, and the GLDM with shell correction and CFM Pα, respectively. Columns (8-9) present the SF half-lives calculated using Eq. (20) [55] and the KPS equation [54], respectively. The last column lists the predicted decay modes.

      In addition, the FRDM Qα values are used to calculate theα-decay half-lives, and the results are shown in Table 3. For Z = 120 isotopes, 296307120 would undergo α-decay, 308120 may undergo both α-decay and SF, and 309327120 would experience SF. For Z = 122 nuclei, 300309,311122 would probably undergo α-decay, 310,312315122 may exhibit both decay modes, and 316331122 experience SF. The 304315,317124 isotopes probably undergo α-decay, 316,318320,327124 have both α-decay and SF, and 321335124 would undergo SF. For Z = 126, 308322,325126 may experience α-decay, 323,326335,337,339126 would probably exhibit two decay modes, and 324,336,338126 would exhibit the SF decay mode. As the adopted Qα values are different in Table 2 and Table 3, the theoretical α-decay half-lives are slightly different. However, the predicted decay modes from the two sets of results are mostly similar. Both the FRDM and WS4 models are capable of providing accurate Qα values for the α-decay calculations.

      ZAQFRDMα/MeVTα1/2/sTα1/2/sTSF1/2/sTSF1/2/sDecay mode
      GLDMGLDMPαEq. (20) [55]KPS [54]
      12029613.593.80E-077.40E-072.84E+042.66E+12α
      29713.651.99E-061.30E-062.37E+071.18E+12α
      29813.241.42E-062.43E-066.02E+043.40E+11α
      29913.741.31E-065.87E-072.58E+077.66E+10α
      30013.692.20E-073.75E-073.80E+036.33E+09α
      30113.621.83E-061.01E-061.67E+068.84E+08α
      30213.563.18E-075.64E-071.17E+023.73E+07α
      30313.522.23E-061.24E-063.32E+042.91E+06α
      30413.552.38E-074.41E-075.87E-015.42E+04α
      30514.261.16E-075.92E-083.40E-015.27E+02α
      30614.271.49E-082.06E-082.24E-064.88E+00α
      30713.628.93E-072.30E-076.53E-058.70E-02α
      30812.971.58E-061.58E-063.20E-081.65E-03α/SF
      30911.762.43E-038.53E-049.87E-063.64E-05SF
      31011.284.18E-037.11E-031.32E-093.28E-07SF
      31110.765.08E-013.32E-012.43E-074.25E-09SF
      31210.719.12E-021.87E-011.79E-112.22E-11SF
      31310.502.09E+001.33E+005.39E-092.24E-13SF
      Continued on next page

      Table 3.  Theoretical α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of the 296327120, 300331122, 304335124, and 308339126 isotopes. The Qth.α values are extracted from the FRDM [65]. Columns (4-5) present the α-decay half-lives calculated with the GLDM with shell correction, and the GLDM with shell correction and CFM Pα. Columns (6,7) present the SF half-lives calculated using Eq. (20) [55] and the KPS equation [54], respectively. The last column lists the predicted decay modes.

    • 3.3.   Comparison with other works

    • We compare our results with those calculated with phenomenological models [78, 79]. For the α-decay half-lives obtained using the FRDM Qα values, we compare our results with those reported in Ref. [78]. The α-decay and SF half-lives are shown in Fig. 3. The results show that the SF half-lives calculated with the modified equation reported by Bao et al. [55, 78] have an even-odd effect. This is because in Eq. (20), the blocking effect of the unpaired nucleon has been considered. The SF half-lives show a trend where with increasing A, the log10TSF1/2 values decrease. It appears that the SF equation modified by Refs. [55, 78] is more sensitive to the nuclear strucure [78]. The α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives reported in this work and Ref. [78] are slightly different. This is because we use FRDM2016 [65] to calculate the Qα and shell correction, whereas the results from Ref. [78] are based on FRDM1995 [80]. However, the predicted decay modes for most nuclei are the same.

      Figure 3.  (color online) The α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of 296308120, 300310122, and 304312124. The log10Tα1/2 values calculated using the UDL and GLDM are derived from Ref. [78].

      We compare the α-decay half-lives calculated with the WS4 Qα values with the results from Ref. [79]. The α-decay half-lives from this work and Ref. [79] are presented in Fig. 4. The log10Tα1/2 values obtained using the Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei (CPPMDN) and Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) are from Ref. [79]. The SF half-lives calculated with the KPS equation [54] are exactly the same, and decrease smoothly with increasing A for Z = 120, 122 isotopes. For Z = 124, 126 nuclei, the SF half-lives also show a similar trend, which is consistent with the results presented in Fig. 3. For the 319322124 and 326329126 isotopes, the competition between α-decay and SF is obvious, indicating that these nuclei may have two decay modes. The results show that with similar Qα values, different phenomenological models show good consistency.

      Figure 4.  (color online) The α-decay half-lives and SF half-lives of 295309120, 301314122, 307323124, and 313331126. The log10Tα1/2 values calculated with the Coulomb and proximity potential model (CPPM) and Coulomb and proximity potential model for deformed nuclei (CPPMDN) are from Ref. [79].

      As we use a fully phenomenological approach, we compare our results with those from calculations considering microscopic modifications [45]. As generally known, the Qα values deduced would have an obvious influence on the calculated α-decay half-lives. A 1 MeV change in the Qα value may lead to a change of around three orders of magnitude or more in the log10Tα1/2 value. In Ref. [45], different mass tables are used to calculate Qα, including the WS4 mass table. Hence, we compare our log10Tα1/2 with the log10Tα1/2 value calculated with the WS4 mass model in Ref. [45]. In Fig. 3 from Ref. [45], the log10Tα1/2 values of Z = 120,122,124 nuclei have dips at Nd = 184, where Nd represents the neutron number of the daughter nucleus. In this work, Fig. 2 shows the same trend for the α-decay half-lives. The above discussion indicates that with similar Qα values, the results obtained with the phenomenological approach are highly consistent with the results from calculations considering microscopic modifications [81].

    4.   Summary
    • We used shell correction induced GLDM to calculate the α-decay half-lives of Z = 120, 122, 124, 126 isotopes. The preformation factor Pα used in the model is of two types, where one is a constant for each type of nuclei, which was adopted from a least-squares fit to the known experimental half-lives (N 152, Z 82). The other type was calculated using the CFM. We compared our calculations with the experimental data for known nuclei from Fl to Og, and found that all the investigated methods could reproduce the α-decay half-lives well. Subsequently, our method was used to predict the α-decay properties of the even-Z SHN from Z = 120 to 126.

      The theoretical Pαvalues calculated using the CFM are very sensitive to the nuclear structure. The Pα and Qα values show similar trends. They both reflect the position of shell structures. However, Pα contains more complex shell structure information as it is adopted from several nearby nuclei. From the Qα and Pα values, we present some nuclei that might be stable, i.e., Z = 120, N = 178, 184, 194, 196, 206, 218, 228; Z = 122, N = 182,184, 196, 202, 206, 216; and Z = 124, N = 204, 208, 216, 220. With larger proton numbers, more neutrons are needed for a nucleus to be stable.

      With the information of the α-decay half-lives, we find that at N = 184, there is no obvious shell structure for Z = 122, 124, 126 isotopes. The 304120 nucleus is predicted to be stable compared with the nearby nuclei. The competition between α-decay and SF is increasing evident from Z = 120 to 126. However, the nuclei at around N = 184 would mostly undergo α-decay. The predicted decay modes for 287339120, 294339122, 300339124, and 306339126 are presented in Table 2.

      We compared our results with other works, including the results obtained with microscopic calculations. The comparisons showed that the phenomenological and microscopic methods can produce highly similar α-decay half-lives, when similar Qα values are adopted. We suggest the selection of suitable Qα values, as the Qα values tend to clearly influence the calculations.

      The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Key Laboratory of Beam Technology of Ministry of Education, Beijing Normal University.

Reference (81)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return