PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)

Synthesis of 292−303 119 superheavy elements using Ca- and Ti-induced reactions

K. P. Santhosh* and V. Safoora

School of Pure and Applied Physics, Swami Anandatheertha Campus, Kannur University, Payyanur 670327, Kerala, India
(Received 8 July 2017; published 18 September 2017)

The synthesis of superheavy element Z = 119 in the fusion evaporation reactions 42,44,46,48 Ca + 252−255 Es and
46−50
Ti + 246−249 Bk in the 3n-, 4n-, and 5n-channels leading to 294−303 119 and 292−299 119, respectively, is evaluated.
It is observed that the 3n-channel (952.173 fb) cross section is larger for the reaction 48 Ca + 252 Es → 300 119; the
4n- (155.026 fb) and 5n- (23.11 fb) channel cross sections are larger for 48 Ca + 254 Es → 302 119. For the reaction
50
Ti + 249 Bk → 299 119, the experimental upper limit of the cross section was about 50 fb, which is very close to
our calculated value (40.86 fb for the 4n-channel). Also, the isotopic dependence of both projectile and target
for the production cross section is discussed. These studies will be useful for the experimentalists to produce
isotopes of element Z = 119.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.034610

I. INTRODUCTION models, such as a dinuclear system model [24], a nuclear

collectivization model [27], a fusion-by-diffusion model [28],
Superheavy elements (SHEs) up to Z = 118 have suc-
a dinuclear system model with a dynamical potential-energy
cessfully been synthesized experimentally, and recently the
surface [30], and using the HIVAP code [24]. The theoretical
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry approved
studies [24–26] and experimental attempts [37] predict the
all elements up to Z = 118 as discovered [1,2]. The exper-
production cross sections of Z = 119 by using 48 Ca-induced
imental advancements have shown the possibilities in the
reactions on Es targets. Since the non-availability of the
production and investigation of new superheavy elements in
required amount of Es targets, more studies are performed
the region of the “island of stability” [3,4]. An experimental
[27–32] using 50 Ti as a projectile on Bk targets. The studies
attempt to synthesize Z = 119 and Z = 120 already was
[33–36] predict the evaporation residue (ER) cross section for
performed in the laboratories using the reactions 50 Ti + 249 Bk
the production of Z = 119 using both 48 Ca- and 50 Ti-induced
[5], 58 Fe + 244 Pu [6], and 54 Cr + 248 Cm [7]. The upper cross-
reactions. In addition to 48 Ca and 50 Ti, in the present paper,
sectional limit of only 50 fb was reported for the production
for the synthesis of SHE Z = 119, we used 42,44,46,48 Ca
of isotopes of element Z = 119 in the reaction 50 Ti + 249 Bk
and 46−50 Ti projectiles on 252−255 Es and 246−249 Bk targets,
[5], and no evidence for detection of element Z = 119 was
respectively. Currently, einsteinium [(254 Es), half-life 276 d]
observed. In an attempt to produce the new element Z = 120,
can be produced in microgram quantities, approximately three
Hofmann et al. [7] investigated the reaction 54 Cr + 248 Cm and
orders of magnitude less than typically required for superheavy
studied production and decay properties of isotopes of element
element synthesis [38]. In principle, these isotopes might be
Z = 120.
produced in nuclear reactors, and the isotopes of Es targets
To synthesize superheavy nuclei with Z = 112−118, the
could be available in the near future.
experiments on complete fusion reactions with 48 Ca-beam
The process of the formation of an ER in a heavy-ion fusion
and various actinide targets (hot fusion reactions) were carried
reaction is considered to be a series of three stages. Initially the
out successfully at Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions
capture of the projectile and target inside the potential pocket,
(Dubna), GSI (Darmstadt), and Lawrence Berkeley National
then the formation of a completely equilibrated composite
Laboratory (Berkeley) [8–18]. At present Cf is the heaviest
nucleus called the CN, and finally the CN survival against
target material available, and a target heavier than Cf is
fission. Hence, the ER cross section is the product of the
difficult to accumulate and prepare in the laboratory. Hence
capture cross section, the CN formation probability, and the
to synthesize the SH elements with Z > 118, experimentalists
probability of the survival of the CN against fission. Each stage
should proceed with projectiles heavier than 48 Ca. The further
of the fusion process should be investigated systematically
addition of the elements in the superheavy region could
in order to get the ER excitation functions. The calculations
be achieved with complete fusion reactions with projectiles
may depend on the models and the methods used, and there
heavier than 48 Ca, such as 50 Ti, 54 Cr, 58 Fe, and 64 Ni on actinide
are several uncertainties in the calculation of the ER cross
targets. To date advancements in experimental technology will
section [39].
surely open up new ways to search for SHEs with Z > 118,
In this paper, we studied the ER excitation functions in 3n-,
and more precise measurements will be possible in the near
4n-, and 5n-evaporation channels for the synthesis of Z = 119
future [19–23].
using 42,44,46,48 Ca projectile on 252−255 Es targets and 46−50 Ti
For the synthesis of element Z = 119, theoretical studies
projectile on 246−249 Bk targets leading to 294−303 119 and
[24–36] are performed by different groups using various 292−299
119, respectively. Hence we can predict the projectile
and target pair having maximum cross sections in the xn-
evaporation channel for the isotopes synthesis 292−303 119
*
drkpsanthosh@gmail.com with optimum energy. The calculations of the ER excitation

2469-9985/2017/96(3)/034610(9) 034610-1 ©2017 American Physical Society

K. P. SANTHOSH AND V. SAFOORA PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)

functions strongly depend on the projectile-target pair and B. Cross section

hence the entrance channel Coulomb barrier. Here we used 1. Capture or total cross section
the Coulomb and proximity potentials as the interaction
barrier for calculating the entrance channel Coulomb barrier. The capture cross section at a given center-of-mass energy
Experimental data showed that the production cross sections of E can be written as the sum of the cross section for each partial
the superheavy nuclei also depend on the isotopic combination wave ,
of the target and projectile. For example, the maximal cross
∞
section in the 3n-channel is 3.6+3.4
−1.7 pb for the reaction Ca +
48
π 
+2.5 σcapture = (2 + 1)T (E,), (9)
242
Pu, however, it is 1.7−1.1 pb for the reaction Ca + 244 Pu,
48
k 2 =0
although the later one is a neutron-rich target [40]. In the
present paper, isotopic dependence of both projectile and target √
for the production cross sections also are discussed. Hence the where wave-number k = 2μE h̄2
and μ is the reduced mass of
paper may help to find the isotopic dependence of the projectile the interacting system. Wong [42] approximated the various
and target for the production of isotopes of Z = 119. barriers for different partial waves by inverted harmonic-
The details of the theoretical calculations performed are oscillator potentials of height E and frequency ω and
discussed in Sec. II, results and discussions are given in arrived at the total cross section for the fusion of two nuclei.
Sec. III, and in Sec. IV, we summarize our findings and For energy E, the probability for the absorption of the th
conclude this paper. partial wave given by the Hill-Wheeler formula [43] is as
follows:
II. THE METHDOLOGY
T (E,) = {1 + exp[2π (E − E)/h̄ω ]}−1 . (10)
A. The potential
The interaction barrier for the two colliding nuclei is given Using some parametrizations in the region of  = 0 and
as replacing the sum in Eq. (9) by an integral, Wong [42] gave
Z1 Z2 e2 h̄2 ( + 1) the total and capture cross sections as
V = + VP (z) + , (1)
r 2μr 2   
R02 h̄ω0 2π (E − E0 )
where Z1 and Z2 are the atomic numbers of the projectile and σcapture = ln 1 + exp , (11)
2E h̄ω0
the target, r is the distance between the centers of the projectile
and the target, z is the distance between the near surfaces of
the projectile and the target,  is the angular momentum, and where R0 is the barrier radius, E0 is the barrier height, and
μ is the reduced mass. h̄ω0 is the curvature of the inverted parabola for  = 0.
The term VP (z) is the proximity potential [41] given as
  2. Fusion cross section
C1 C2 z
VP (z) = 4π γ b φ , (2) The fusion cross section is expressed as
C 1 + C2 b
∞
with the nuclear surface tension coefficient, π 
σfusion = 2 (2 + 1)T (E,)PCN (E,), (12)
γ = 0.9517[1 − 1.7826(N − Z)2 /A2 ]. (3) k =0

φ, the universal proximity potential, is given as

where PCN is the probability of compound nucleus formation.
φ(ξ ) = −4.41 exp(−ξ/0.7176) for ξ  1.9475, (4) Probability of compound nucleus formation. We used the
energy-dependent expression for fusion probability [44,45] to
φ(ξ ) = −1.7817 + 0.9270ξ + 0.01696ξ 2 − 0.05148ξ 3
calculate PCN , and it is given by
for 0  ξ  1.9475, (5)
φ(ξ ) = −1.7817 + 0.9270ξ + 0.0143ξ − 0.09ξ
2 3 exp{−c(xeff − xthr )}
PCN (E,) = E ∗ −E ∗
, (13)
for ξ  0, (6) 1 + exp B

with ξ = z/b, where the width (diffuseness) of nuclear surface where E ∗ is the excitation energy of the compound nucleus, EB∗
b ≈ 1 fm and Ci is the Susmann central radii, denotes the excitation energy of the compound nucleus when
b2 the center-of-mass beam energy is equal to the Coulomb and
Ci = Ri − . (7) proximity barriers, is an adjustable parameter ( = 4 MeV),
Ri2
and xeff is the effective fissility defined as
For Ri , we use the semiempirical formula in terms of mass
number Ai as  
(Z 2 /A)
−1/3 xeff = [1 − α + αf (K)], (14)
Ri = 1.28Ai
1/3
− 0.76 + 0.8Ai . (8) (Z 2 /A)crit

034610-2
SYNTHESIS OF 292−303 119 SUPERHEAVY . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)

with (Z 2 /A)crit , f (K), and K is given by barrier height Bf can be determined as the sum of the liquid
  2  drop (LD) fission barrier and shell correction terms,
(N − Z)
(Z 2 /A)crit = 50.883 1 − 1.7826
A
4 where ED is the shell damping energy given by
f (K) = , (16)
K2 + K + 1
K
+ 1
K2
K = (A1 /A2 ) 1/3
, (17)
where Z, N, and A represent the atomic number, the neutron
number, and the mass number, respectively. A1 and A2 are
the mass numbers of the projectile and the target, respectively.
xthr , c are adjustable parameters, and α = 1/3. For the best
fit for the cold fusion reaction, the values of c and xeff are
136.5 and 0.79, respectively. For the hot fusion reaction, the
best fits for xeff  0.8 are c = 104 and xthr = 0.69; whereas
for xeff  0.8, the values are c = 82 and xthr = 0.69. These
constants are suggested by Loveland [46].
3. Evaporation residue cross section
The cross section of SHE production in a heavy-ion fusion
reaction with the subsequent emission of x neutrons is the
product of the capture cross section, the fusion probability,
and the survival probability [47–49],
∞
xn π  xn
σER = (2 + 1)T (E,)PCN (E,)Wsur (E ∗ ,),
k 2 =0
The survival probability Wsur is the probability for the
compound nucleus to decay to the ground state of the final
residual nucleus via the evaporation of light particles and a γ
ray for avoiding the fission process.
Survival probability. The survival probability under the
evaporation of x neutrons is
imax
=x  
∗ n
Wsur = Pxn (ECN ) , (19)
i=1
n + f i,E ∗
where the index “i” is equal to the number of emitted neutrons,
Pxn is the probability of emitting exactly xn neutrons [50], E ∗
is the excitation energy of the compound nucleus, n and f
represent the decay width of neutron evaporation and fission,
respectively. To calculate n /f , Vandenbosch and Huizenga
[51] have suggested a classical formalism,
n 4A2/3 af (E ∗ − Bn )
=  1/2 
f K0 an 2af (E ∗ − Bf )1/2 − 1
 
× exp 2an1/2 (E ∗ − Bn )1/2 − 2af (E ∗ − Bf )1/2 ,
1/2
where A is the mass number of the nucleus considered, E ∗
is the excitation energy, and Bn is the neutron separation
energy. The constant K0 is taken as 10 MeV. an = A/10 and
af = 1.1an are the level-density parameters of the daughter
nucleus and the fissioning nucleus at the ground state and
saddle configurations, respectively. Bf is the fission barrier,
and this height is a decisive quantity in the competition
between processes of neutron evaporation and fission. Fission
, (15) Bf (E ∗ ) = BfLD + S exp(−E ∗ /ED ), (21)
ED = 5.48A1/3 /(1 + 1.3A−1/3 ) MeV. (22)
The liquid drop fission barrier is very low or equal to zero for
heavy elements with Z > 109 [52,53]. So the fission barrier in
the heaviest nuclei is defined mainly by shell corrections, and
its value depends on the excitation energy. The shell correction
S is taken from Ref. [54].
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
With the methodology described previously, we have
evaluated the production cross section of SHE Z = 119 in
the fusion reactions 42,44,46,48 Ca + 252−255 Es and 46−50 Ti +
246−249
Bk leading to 294−303 119 and 292−299 119, respectively.
The Coulomb barrier and barrier position are calculated taking
the Coulomb and proximity potentials as the interacting
potential. The capture cross section is calculated using the
well-known formula of Wong [42]. The probability of CN
formation PCN and fission barrier Bf are calculated using
the energy-dependant formulas. Fusion and ER cross sections
(18) for the synthesis of isotopes of Z = 119 are evaluated
systematically.
The calculated maximum value of the evaporation residue
cross section (in the 3n-, 4n-, and 5n-channels) and the
corresponding excitation energy for these reactions are listed in
Table I. It is found that, among the reactions 42 Ca + 252−255 Es
leading to 294−297 119 the highest cross section is obtained
for the reaction 42 Ca + 253 Es → 295 119 in the 4n-channel
(4.766 fb at 47 MeV). Also among these, the 3n-channel
cross section (1.226 fb at 44.48 MeV) is larger for the
reaction 42 Ca + 252 Es → 294 119, and the 5n-channel cross
section (2.167 fb at 52.89 MeV) is larger for the reaction
42
Ca + 254 Es → 296 119.
The ER cross section of 44 Ca + 252−255 Es leading to
296−299
119 in the 3n-, 4n-, and 5n-channels is evaluated.
Among these, the maximum cross section obtained is for
the 4n-channel (39.213 fb at 43.3 MeV) for the reaction
44
Ca + 255 Es → 299 119. The 3n-channel cross section is larger
(25.038 fb at 38.77 MeV) for 44 Ca + 252 Es → 296 119, and the
5n-channel cross section (7.627 fb at 49.68 MeV) is larger
for 44 Ca + 254 Es → 298 119. Among 46 Ca + 252−255 Es leading
to 298−301 119, the largest cross section obtained is 476.381 fb
at 33.82 MeV for the reaction 46 Ca + 252 Es → 298 119 in the
(20) 3n-channel, and the next highest cross section for the same
channel obtained is 321.161 fb for 46 Ca + 254 Es → 300 119.
The 4n-channel cross section is larger (137.672 fb) for the
reaction 46 Ca + 255 Es → 301 119.
The ER cross section using the 48 Ca-induced reaction
on 252−255 Es targets is presented in Fig. 1. For the reaction
48
Ca + 254 Es → 302 119, the obtained maximum values of the
ER cross section in the 3n-, 4n-, and 5n-channel cross sections
are 722.331, 155.026, and 23.108 fb, respectively. The 3n-
and 4n-channel cross sections for 48 Ca + 253 Es → 301 119 are
034610-3
K. P. SANTHOSH AND V. SAFOORA PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)

TABLE I. Predicted maximum value of the ER cross section obtained for the synthesis of SH element Z = 119 using Ca- and Ti-induced
reactions.

Reaction E ∗ (MeV) 3n (fb) E ∗ (MeV) 4n (fb) E ∗ (MeV) 5n (fb)

42
Ca + Es → 119
252 294
44.78 1.226 46.28 2.265 54.28 0.482
42
Ca + 253 Es → 295 119 46.00 0.422 47.00 4.766 54.50 0.261
42
Ca + 254 Es → 296 119 46.89 0.495 47.89 3.201 52.89 2.167
42
Ca + 255 Es → 297 119 48.63 0.144 49.63 4.704 53.63 0.893
44
Ca + 252 Es → 296 119 38.77 25.038 42.77 17.680 51.77 0.879
44
Ca + 253 Es → 297 119 39.63 15.767 42.63 37.872 52.63 0.847
44
Ca + 254 Es → 298 119 40.68 15.492 43.18 25.599 49.68 7.627
44
Ca + 255 Es → 299 119 41.80 3.320 43.30 39.213 51.30 2.690
46
Ca + 252 Es → 298 119 33.82 476.381 40.82 33.007 49.82 6.142
46
Ca + 253 Es → 299 119 34.56 110.105 40.06 73.483 51.06 2.131
46
Ca + 254 Es → 300 119 34.95 321.161 39.95 41.065 48.45 12.298
46
Ca + 255 Es → 301 119 35.70 89.803 38.70 137.672 49.70 3.157
48
Ca + 252 Es → 300 119 30.17 952.173 38.67 61.595 48.17 9.437
48
Ca + 253 Es → 301 119 30.54 601.494 38.54 140.425 49.54 2.445
48
Ca + 254 Es → 302 119 29.64 722.331 38.14 155.026 46.64 23.11
48
Ca + 255 Es → 303 119 30.07 215.442 37.07 145.943 47.57 6.841
46
Ti + 246 Bk → 292 119 43.07 0.617 45.57 0.494 55.07 0.068
46
Ti + 247 Bk → 293 119 44.08 0.311 45.08 0.920 57.08 0.036
46
Ti + 248 Bk → 294 119 45.16 0.430 46.66 0.992 53.66 0.226
46
Ti + 249 Bk → 295 119 46.27 0.152 47.27 1.994 54.77 0.129
47
Ti + 246 Bk → 293 119 41.75 1.014 44.25 1.254 56.75 0.032
47
Ti + 247 Bk → 294 119 41.60 3.528 45.10 1.640 54.10 0.212
47
Ti + 248 Bk → 295 119 42.85 0.708 44.85 3.772 55.35 0.114
47
Ti + 249 Bk → 296 119 43.37 1.882 44.87 3.592 51.87 1.059
48
Ti + 246 Bk → 294 119 36.52 42.349 44.02 1.969 53.02 0.195
48
Ti + 247 Bk → 295 119 37.54 13.242 42.54 6.565 54.54 0.103
48
Ti + 248 Bk → 296 119 37.20 40.469 42.70 6.415 51.70 0.999
48
Ti + 249 Bk → 297 119 38.95 12.542 42.45 20.573 52.95 0.422
49
Ti + 246 Bk → 295 119 35.95 25.698 42.95 7.163 54.45 0.103
49
Ti + 247 Bk → 296 119 34.88 153.072 41.88 6.488 51.88 0.893
49
Ti + 248 Bk → 297 119 36.77 29.931 41.27 21.714 52.27 0.377
49
Ti + 249 Bk → 298 119 36.45 75.886 41.95 17.352 49.95 3.573
50
Ti + 246 Bk → 296 119 31.49 466.011 41.49 6.173 51.49 0.773
50
Ti + 247 Bk → 297 119 33.65 128.262 41.65 23.237 52.65 0.332
50
Ti + 248 Bk → 298 119 31.97 488.735 40.47 18.114 49.47 3.212
50
Ti + 249 Bk → 299 119 32.60 105.107 40.10 40.856 51.10 1.105

601.494 and 140.425 fb, respectively, and for 48 Ca + 255 Es →
303
119 are 215.442 and 145.943 fb, respectively. It is found
that, among all the Ca-induced reactions on 252−255 Es, the re-
action 48 Ca + 252 Es → 300 119 has the largest ER cross-section
value obtained in the 3n-channel (952.173 fb at 30.17 MeV).
The 4n- and 5n-channel cross sections for the same reaction
is 61.595 and 9.437 fb, respectively. The half-lives of the
einsteinium isotopes 252−255 Es are 471, 20, 275, and 40
days, respectively, sufficient to be used as target material.
However, for the moment, it is impossible to accumulate
and prepare the required amount of the target material. The
isotopes of Es are extremely difficult to produce, however,
these targets could be made available in the near future. Thus
to synthesize elements with Z > 118, Ti is the most promising
projectile for SH element synthesis, which is heavier than a Ca
projectile.
So for the synthesis of SHE Z = 119, we also have
calculated an ER cross section using Ti-induced reactions
on Bk targets. For computing an ER cross section, isotopes
46−50
Ti are used as projectiles and 246−249 Bk are used as
targets. Among the reactions 46 Ti + 246−249 Bk leading to
292−295
119, the highest ER cross section obtained is 1.994 fb
for the reaction 46 Ti + 249 Bk → 295 119 in the 4n-channel.
Among the reactions 47 Ti + 246−249 Bk leading to 293−296 119,
the highest cross section of 3.772 fb is obtained for the reaction
47
Ti + 248 Bk → 295 119 for the 4n-channel.
The reaction for which the highest cross section obtained
among the reactions 48 Ti + 246−249 Bk leading to 294−297 119

034610-4
SYNTHESIS OF 292−303 119 SUPERHEAVY . . .
FIG. 1. Calculated ER cross sections in the 3n-, 4n-, and 5n-
channels for the reactions 48 Ca + 252−255 Es → 300−303 119.
is 48 Ti + 246 Bk → 294 119 (42.349 fb) for the 3n-channel at
36.52 MeV. Among these, the highest cross section obtained
for the 4n-channel is 20.573 fb for the reaction 48 Ti + 249 Bk →
297
119. The maximum cross section obtained among the
reactions 49 Ti + 246−249 Bk leading to 295−298 119 is 153.072 fb
for the reaction 49 Ti + 247 Bk → 296 119 in the 3n-channel. The
maximum obtained 4n-channel cross section among these is
21.714 fb for the reaction 49 Ti + 248 Bk → 297 119.
In Fig. 2, we show the 50 Ti-induced reaction on 246−249 Bk
leading to 296−299 119. Among these reactions the highest
cross section obtained is for the 3n-channel for the reac-
tion 50 Ti + 248 Bk → 298 119 (488.735 fb). For the reactions
50
Ti + 246 Bk → 296 119, 50 Ti + 247 Bk → 297 119, and 50 Ti +
249
Bk → 299 119, the obtained 3n-channel cross sections are
FIG. 2. Calculated ER cross sections in the 3n-, 4n-, and 5n-
channels for the reactions 50 Ti + 246−249 Bk → 296−299 119. For the
reaction 50 Ti + 249 Bk → 299 119, the experimental upper limit is taken
from Ref. [5].
034610-5
PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)
466.011, 128.262, and 105.107 fb, respectively, and the
4n-channel cross sections are 6.173, 23.237, and 40.856 fb,
respectively. The theoretical predictions [23–32] using the
reaction 50 Ti + 249 Bk are available, and an experimental
attempt [3] was performed already using this reaction, and
it is still going on. But experimentally, no event that could
be assigned to the decay of element Z = 119 was found, and
only the upper limit of the cross section has been obtained.
The estimated upper limit of the cross section was about 50 fb,
which is very close to our calculated value (40.86 fb for the
4n-channel).
For the synthesis of SHEs 292 119 and 293 119, the reac-
tions studied are 46 Ti + 246 Bk → 292 119 and 47 Ti + 246 Bk →
293
119, respectively. For these two reactions leading to 292 119
and 293 119, a larger cross section is obtained for the 3n
(0.617 fb) and 4n (1.254 fb) channels, respectively. Among
the four reactions 42 Ca + 252 Es, 46 Ti + 248 Bk, 47 Ti + 247 Bk,
and 48 Ti + 246 Bk mentioned for 294 119, the largest cross
section obtained is 42.349 fb for the reaction 48 Ti + 246 Bk
in the 3n-channel. So to synthesize 294 119, the system 48 Ti +
246
Bk is the most favorable target-projectile combination. For
the synthesis of 295 119, among the reactions 42 Ca + 253 Es,
46
Ti + 249 Bk, 47 Ti + 248 Bk, 48 Ti + 247 Bk, and 49 Ti + 246 Bk,
the most promising combination is 49 Ti + 246 Bk for which the
obtained maximum value of the ER cross section is 25.698 fb
in the 3n-channel. Similarly, among the reactions 42 Ca +
254
Es, 44 Ca + 252 Es, 47 Ti + 249 Bk, 48 Ti + 248 Bk, 49 Ti + 247 Bk,
50
Ti + 246 Bk leading to 296 119, the most favorable target-
projectile combinations are 50 Ti + 246 Bk (466.011 fb) and
49
Ti + 247 Bk (153.072 fb) for which the calculated highest
cross section is obtained in the 3n-channel. Among the
mentioned reactions for 296 119, the 4n-channel cross section
is larger (17.68 fb) for 44 Ca + 252 Es.
For the synthesis of 297 119, the studied combinations are
42
Ca + 255 Es, 44 Ca + 253 Es, 49 Ti + 248 Bk, 48 Ti + 249 Bk, and
50
Ti + 247 Bk. For this CN, the highest ER cross section
(128.262 fb at 33.65 MeV) obtained is for the reaction
50
Ti + 247 Bk in the 3n-channel. At E ∗ = 37 MeV, the obtained
3n-channel cross section for the reaction 50 Ti + 247 Bk is 61 fb,
and the value quoted in Ref. [28] is 43 fb. Similarly, to syn-
thesize 298 119, the considered combinations in the paper are
44
Ca + 254 Es, 46 Ca + 252 Es, 49 Ti + 249 Bk, and 50 Ti + 248 Bk.
Among these reactions, the highest cross section obtained is
for the reactions 50 Ti + 248 Bk (488.735 fb) and 46 Ca + 252 Es
(476.381 fb) in the 3n-channel. The highest 4n-channel cross
section is obtained for 46 Ca + 252 Es (33.007 fb).
For the synthesis of 299 119, the reactions used are 44 Ca +
255
Es, 46 Ca + 253 Es, and 50 Ti + 249 Bk. Among these, the
most promising reactions are 46 Ca + 253 Es and 50 Ti + 249 Bk.
The 3n- and 4n-channel cross sections for 46 Ca + 253 Es
are (110.105 fb) and (73.483 fb), respectively, and for the
reaction 50 Ti + 249 Bk, the corresponding values are 105.107
and 40.856 fb, respectively. To synthesize 300 119, the most
promising among the reactions 46 Ca + 254 Es and 48 Ca + 252 Es
is 48 Ca + 252 Es. For this reaction, the maximum value of the
ER cross section is 952.173 fb (3n), which is the very largest
cross section obtained in our paper to synthesize Z = 119.
Similarly, to synthesize 301 119, the best reaction among
46
Ca + 255 Es and 48 Ca + 253 Es is 48 Ca + 253 Es for which the
K. P. SANTHOSH AND V. SAFOORA PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)

TABLE II. Comparison of predicted maximum values of the evaporation residue cross sections σER (3n) and σER (4n) for 50 Ti + 249 Bk →
299
119, 48 Ca + 252 Es → 300 119, and 48 Ca + 254 Es → 302 119 with other theoretical predictions.
50
Ti + 249 Bk → 299 119 48
Ca + 252 Es → 300 119 48
Ca + 254 Es → 302 119 Reference
E∗ σER E∗ σER E∗ σER E∗ σER E∗ σER E∗ σER
(MeV) 3n (fb) (MeV) 4n (fb) (MeV) 3n (fb) (MeV) 4n (fb) (MeV) 3n (fb) (MeV) 4n (fb)
27.5 640 35.0 350 [24]
36 210 42 3160 36 80 42 1700 [25]
35 260 40 160 33 410 37 1300 [26]
41 40 43.5 55 [27]
35 170 41 570 [28]
33 35 43 35 [29]
36 60 46 110 [30]
36.5 480 43.5 310 [31]
37 33 46 15 [32]
34.5 12 46.5 64 34 590 44 960 [33]
38 40 50 150 37 45 47 180 [34]
30 340 40 160 30 2750 38 160 27 4040 35 1230 [35]
35.5 30 47.5 36 33 80 43 220 32 4 41 16 [36]
32.6 105.1 40.1 40.9 30.2 952.2 38.7 61.6 29.6 722.3 38.1 155.0 This paper

maximum values of the ER cross section obtained are 601.494
and 140.425 fb in the 3n- and 4n-channels, respectively. For the
synthesis of 302 119 and 303 119, the studied combinations are
48
Ca + 254 Es and 48 Ca + 255 Es, respectively. The maximum
value of the ER cross section obtained in the 3n- and
4n-channels for 48 Ca + 254 Es are 722.331 and 155.026 fb,
respectively, and for 48 Ca + 255 Es are 215.442 and 145.943 fb,
respectively.
In Table II, we compared our results with other theoretical
studies for the reactions 50 Ti + 249 Bk, 48 Ca + 252 Es, and
48
Ca + 254 Es, and in most of the cases our values agree
with other theoretical predictions. The difference observed in
various theoretical predictions is due to the different methods
used for calculating the probability of CN formation and
survival probability. Also the use of different mass tables
in different theoretical approaches gives different values
of binding energy, and the corresponding changes will be
reflected in the calculations. Theoretically many studies have
been performed using the reaction 50 Ti + 249 Bk than the
other two reactions (48 Ca + 252 Es and 48 Ca + 254 Es), and an
experimental attempt also is performed using the 50 Ti + 249 Bk
reaction. By analyzing our results and other theoretical studies
(Table II), it is found that the highest cross section obtained is
for the 48 Ca-induced reaction and hence it is the best reaction
to synthesize SHE Z = 119. So, we look forward to new
experimental investigations using the 48 Ca + 252,254 Es reaction
as it is found to be the most feasible combination.
While analyzing Table I, it also is found that, with the
increase in neutron number of target 252−255 Es (for a particular
Ca projectile on odd-A and even-A targets), the production
cross section is found to be decreasing for the 3n-channel and
increasing for the 4n-channel. With the increase in neutron
number of the projectile as 42,44,46,48 Ca, the production cross
section is found to be increasing. The result shows that the
targets 252 Es in the 3n-channel, 254 Es in the 4n-channel, and
the projectile 48 Ca in both channels have the largest cross
sections. From the isotopic trend in the Ti-induced reactions on
Bk targets, with the increase in neutron number of the projectile
and target, the production cross section is found to be increas-
ing. In this case, the reactions 50 Ti + 249 Bk in the 4n-channel
and 50 Ti + 248,246 Bk in the 3n-channel gave the maximum
production cross sections for the synthesis of Z = 119.
Among all the reactions mentioned, the 3n-channel cross
section is larger for 48 Ca + 252 Es → 300 119; the 4n- and 5n-
channel cross sections are larger for 48 Ca + 254 Es → 302 119.
Thus we have predicted the production cross section for the
synthesis of isotopes of element Z = 119 and the favorable
projectile-target pair using Ca- and Ti-induced reactions. We
would like to mention that, in the present paper, we have
predicted the production cross section for the synthesis of iso-
topes 292−299 119 using the reactions 42,44,46,48 Ca + 252−255 Es
and 46−50 Ti + 246−249 Bk, whereas the other theoretical studies
are based on the 48 Ca- and 50 Ti-induced reactions only. We
hope our studies will be a guide for future experiments to
synthesize the SH element Z = 119, which is not synthesized
so far.
In order to check the reliability of the present calculations,
we have calculated the fusion excitation functions for the re-
actions leading to superheavy elements Z = 114 to Z = 118,
which have already been measured in the experiments. The
predicted ER cross sections and the corresponding excitation
energies are compared with the experimental values and are
shown in Table III. Our predictions of the ER cross sections
agree with the experimental values. For these calculations on
Z = 114−118, we have used the same model with the same set
of parameters which are described in Sec. II. We would like to
mention that, for the SHEs Z = 117 [45] and Z = 120 [44],
we already have performed the calculations using the same
model with the same set of parameters. We were successful
in reproducing the experimentally measured cross sections for
the SHEs Z = 114−118 which clearly shows the validity of
our calculations and hence we are confident in predicting the

034610-6
SYNTHESIS OF 292−303 119 SUPERHEAVY . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)

TABLE III. Comparison of the calculated evaporation residue cross section and the corresponding excitation energy with that of experiments
for the SHEs with Z = 114−118.

Reaction Expt. Our paper

∗ ∗
E σER Reference E σcapture σfusion σER Reference
(MeV) (pb) (MeV) (mb) (mb) (pb)

38–42.4 σ3n = 3.6+3.4

−1.7 [55] σ3n = 4.2
40.2 41.9 4.6 × 10−3
38–42.4 σ4n = 4.5+3.6
−1.9 [55] σ4n = 2.95
48
Ca + 242 Pu → 290 Fl
48–52 σ4n = 0.6+0.9
−0.5 [56] σ4n = 0.5
50 266.9 4.5 × 10−2
48–52 σ5n = 0.6+0.9
−0.5 [56] σ5n = 0.3

39–43 σ3n = 1.7+2.5

−1.1 [57] σ3n = 4.1
40.5 18.2 1.9 × 10−3
48
Ca + 244 Pu → 292 Fl 39–43 σ4n = 5.3+3.6
−2.1 [57] σ4n = 3.9
39.8–43.9 σ4n = 9.8+3.9
−3.1 [58] 42 54 7.1 × 10−3 σ4n = 8.6

42.4–46.5 σ4n = 0.9+3.2

−0.8 [40,59] 44 333.1 2.1 × 10−2 σ4n = 0.9
48
Ca + 243
Am → 291
Mc 38–42.3 σ3n = 2.7+4.8
−1.6 [40,59] 39 212.1 1.2 × 10−2 σ3n = 1.2
34–38.3 σ3n = 8.5+6.4
−3.7 [60] 35 109 5.1 × 10−3 σ3n = 6.02

36.8–41.1 σ3n = 1.1+1.7

−0.7 [61] σ3n = 0.9
38.9 203 4.9 × 10−3
36.8–41.1 σ4n = 3.3+2.5
−1.4 [61] σ4n = 4.6
48
Ca + 248
Cm → 296
Lv
40.9 σ3n = 0.9+2.1
−0.7 [61] σ3n = 0.3
40.9 253 6.4 × 10−3
40.9 σ4n = 3.4+2.7
−1.6 [61] σ4n = 3.4

30.4–34.7 σ3n = 0.7+1.7

−0.57 [17] 32.6 78.42 1.6 × 10−3 σ3n = 2.2 [45]
33.2–37.4 σ3n = 0.5+1.1
−0.4 [13]
35 σ3n = 3.6+6.1
−2.5 [18] 35 143.4 3.4 × 10−3 σ3n = 1.2 [45]
32.8–37.5 σ3n = 1.1+1.2
−0.6 [17]
48
Ca + 249 Bk → 297 Ts 37.2–41.4 σ4n = 1.3+1.5
−0.6 [13]
39 σ4n = 2.0+2.2
−1.1 [18] 39 238.0 6.4 × 10−3 σ4n = 1.12 [45]
37–41.9 σ4n = 1.5+1.1
−0.5 [17]
40.3–44.8 σ4n = 2.4+3.3
−1.4 [17] 43 335.2 9.6 × 10−3 σ4n = 0.5 [45]
43.8–48.3 σ4n = 2.0+1.8
−1.1 [17] 46 405.7 1.2 × 10−2 σ4n = 0.18 [45]
48
Ca + 249 Cf → 297 Og 34 σ3n = 0.5+1.6
−0.3 [3] 34 164.9 1.01 × 10−3 σ3n = 0.6

fusion excitation functions for the synthesis of SHEs, which
are not synthesized so far.
IV. CONCLUSION
We have evaluated the ER cross section in the 3n-, 4n-,
and 5n-channels of the fusion reaction 42,44,46,48 Ca + 252−255 Es
and 46−50 Ti + 246−249 Bk leading to the CN 292−303 119. Our
result shows that 48 Ca + 252 Es → 300 119 and 48 Ca + 254 Es →
302
119 in the 3n-channel and the 4n-channel, respectively,
should be the favorable projectile-target pair for the syn-
thesis of Z = 119. Among the 46−50 Ti-induced reactions on
246−249
Bk targets, the promising projectile-target pairs for
which the maximum production cross section obtained is
for 50 Ti + 249 Bk in the 4n-channel and 50 Ti + 248,246 Bk in
the 3n-channel. For the reaction 50 Ti + 249 Bk, our calculated
maximum value (40.86 fb) for the 4n-channel is very close to
the predicted experimental upper limit of the cross-sectional
value (50 fb). The isotopic dependence of the projectile and
target for the production cross section leading to the CN
Z = 119 also are studied, and these studies will be helpful
for experimentalists to conduct experiments with optimum
energy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
One of the authors (V.S.) would like to thank the University
Grants Commission (UGC), Government of India, for financial
support in the form of a Moulana Azad National Fellowship
(MANF).

[1] R. C. Barber, H. W. Gäggeler, P. J. Karol, H. Nakahara, E. [3] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh.
Vardaci, and E. Vogt, Pure Appl. Chem. 81, 1331 (2009). Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, R. N. Sagaidak, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu.
[2] L. Öhrström and J. Reedijk, Pure Appl. Chem. 88, 1225 (2016). S. Tsyganov, A. A. Voinov, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov,

034610-7
K. P. SANTHOSH AND V. SAFOORA
B. N. Gikal, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M.
Sukhov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, G. K. Vostokin, M. G. Itkis,
K. J. Moody, J. B. Patin, D. A. Shaughnessy, M. A. Stoyer, N. J.
Stoyer, P. A. Wilk, J. M. Kenneally, J. H. Landrum, J. F. Wild,
and R. W. Lougheed, Phys. Rev. C 74, 044602 (2006).
[4] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, A. Sobiczewski, and G. M. Ter-Akopian,
Phys. Scr. 92, 023003 (2017).
[5] V. I. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 257 (2015).
[6] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh.
Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, R. N. Sagaidak, I. V. Shirokovsky,
Yu. S. Tsyganov, A. A. Voinov, A. N. Mezentsev, V. G. Subbotin,
A. M. Sukhov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, S. N. Dmitriev, R. A.
Henderson, K. J. Moody, J. M. Kenneally, J. H. Landrum, D. A.
Shaughnessy, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, and P. A. Wilk, Phys.
Rev. C 79, 024603 (2009).
[7] S. Hofmann, S. Heinz, R. Mann, J. Maurer, G. Munzenberg, S.
Antalic, W. Barth, H. G. Burkhard, L. Dahl, K. Eberhardt, R.
Grzywacz, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, J. M. Kenneally,
B. Kindler, I. Kojouharov, R. Lang, B. Lommel, K. Miernik,
D. Miller, K. J. Moody, K. Morita, K. Nishio, A. G. Popeko,
J. B. Roberto, J. Runke, K. P. Rykaczewski, S. Saro, C.
Scheidenberger, H. J. Schott, D. A. Shaughnessy, M. A. Stoyer,
P. Thorle-Pospiech, K. Tinschert, N. Trautmann, J. Uusitalo, and
A. V. Yeremin, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 180 (2016).
[8] S. Hofmann and G. Munzenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 733
(2000).
[9] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh.
Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov, G.
G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, B. N. Gikal, A. N. Mezentsev,
S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, O. V. Ivanov, G. V.
Buklanov, K. Subotic, M. G. Itkis, K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, N.
J. Stoyer, M. A. Stoyer, and R. W. Lougheed, Phys. Rev. C 62,
041604(R) (2000).
[10] S. Hofmann, F. P. Heßberger, D. Ackermann, G. Münzenberg,
S. Antalic, P. Cagarda, B. Kindler, J. Kojouharova, M. Leino,
B. Lommel, R. Mann, A. G. Popeko, S. Reshitko, S. Saro, J.
Uusitalo, and A. V. Yeremin, Eur. Phys. J. A 14, 147 (2002).
[11] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkoy, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh.
Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov,
G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V.
G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, A. A. Voinov, G. V. Buklanov, K.
Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, M. G. Itkis, J. B. Patin, K. J. Moody,
J. F. Wild, M. A.Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, D. A. Shaughnessy, J. M.
Kenneally, and R. W. Lougheed, Phys. Rev. C 69, 021601(R)
(2004).
[12] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, P. D. Bailey, D. E. Benker,
M. E. Bennett, S. N. Dmitriev, J. G. Ezold, J. H. Hamilton, R.
A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, Yu. V. Lobanov, A. N. Mezentsev,
K. J. Moody, S. L. Nelson, A. N. Polyakov, C. E. Porter,
A. V. Ramayya, F. D. Riley, J. B. Roberto, M. A. Ryabinin,
K. P. Rykaczewski, R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughnessy, I. V.
Shirokovsky, M. A. Stoyer, V. G. Subbotin, R. Sudowe, A. M.
Sukhov, Yu. S. Tsyganov, V. K. Utyonkov, A. A. Voinov, G. K.
Vostokin, and P. A. Wilk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 142502 (2010).
[13] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, P. D. Bailey, D. E. Benker,
M. E. Bennett, S. N. Dmitriev, J. G. Ezold, J. H. Hamilton, R.
A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, Yu. V. Lobanov, A. N. Mezentsev,
K. J. Moody, S. L. Nelson, A. N. Polyakov, C. E. Porter, A.
V. Ramayya, F. D. Riley, J. B. Roberto, M. A. Ryabinin, K.
P. Rykaczewski, R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughnessy, I. V.
Shirokovsky, M. A. Stoyer, V. G. Subbotin, R. Sudowe, A.
034610-8
PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)
M. Sukhov, R. Taylor, Yu. S. Tsyganov, V. K. Utyonkov, A.
A. Voinov, G. K. Vostokin, and P. A. Wilk, Phys. Rev. C 83,
054315 (2011).
[14] J. H. Hamilton, S. Hofmann, and Yu. Ts. Oganessian, Annu.
Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 383 (2013).
[15] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, J. M. Gostic,
J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, K. J. Moody, A.
N. Polyakov, A. V. Ramayya, J. B. Roberto, K. P. Rykaczewski,
R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughnessy, I. V. Shirokovsky, M. A.
Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, Yu. S.
Tsyganov, V. K. Utyonkov, A. A. Voinov, and G. K. Vostokin,
Phys. Rev. C 87, 014302 (2013).
[16] V. K. Utyonkov, N. T. Brewer, Yu. Ts. Oganessian, K. P.
Rykaczewski, F. Sh. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, R. K. Grzywacz,
M. G. Itkis, K. Miernik, A. N. Polyakov, J. B. Roberto, R. N.
Sagaidak, I. V. Shirokovsky, M. V. Shumeiko, Yu. S. Tsyganov,
A. A. Voinov, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, A. V. Sabel’nikov,
G. K. Vostokin, J. H. Hamilton, M. A. Stoyer, and S. Y. Strauss,
Phys. Rev. C 92, 034609 (2015).
[17] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, C. Alexander, J. Binder,
R. A. Boll, S. N. Dmitriev, J. Ezold, K. Felker, J. M. Gostic,
R. K. Grzywacz, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis,
K. Miernik, D. Miller, K. J. Moody, A. N. Polyakov, A. V.
Ramayya, J. B. Roberto, M. A. Ryabinin, K. P. Rykaczewski,
R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughnessy, I. V. Shirokovsky, M. V.
Shumeiko, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, V. G. Subbotin, A. M.
Sukhov, Yu. S. Tsyganov, V. K. Utyonkov, A. A. Voinov, and
G. K. Vostokin, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054621 (2013).
[18] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, C. Alexander, J. Binder,
R. A. Boll, S. N. Dmitriev, J. Ezold, K. Felker, J. M. Gostic,
R. K. Grzywacz, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis,
K. Miernik, D. Miller, K. J. Moody, A. N. Polyakov, A. V.
Ramayya, J. B. Roberto, M. A. Ryabinin, K. P. Rykaczewski,
R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughnessy, I. V. Shirokovsky, M. V.
Shumeiko, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, V. G. Subbotin, A. M.
Sukhov, Yu. S. Tsyganov, V. K. Utyonkov, A. A. Voinov, and
G. K. Vostokin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 162501 (2012).
[19] B. B. Back, H. Esbensen, C. L. Jiang, and K. E. Rehm,
Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 317 (2014).
[20] S. Hoffman, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 42, 114001 (2015).
[21] Yu. Ts. Oganessian and V. K. Utyonkov, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 62
(2015).
[22] S. Dmitriev, M. Itkis, and Yu. Ts. Oganessian, EPJ Web Conf.
131, 08001 (2016).
[23] J. Hong, G. G. Adamian, and N. V. Antonenko, Phys. Lett. B
764, 42 (2017).
[24] Z.-Q. Feng, G.-M. Jin, J.-Q. Li, and W. Scheid, Nucl. Phys. A
816, 33 (2009).
[25] H. M. Devaraja, Y. K. Gambhir, M. Gupta, and G. Münzenberg,
Phys. Rev. C 93, 034621 (2016).
[26] G. Z. Guo, Z. X. Hong, H. M. Hui, F. Z Qing, and L. J. Qing,
Sci. China: Phys., Mech. Astron. 54, 61 (2011).
[27] V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034610 (2008).
[28] Z. H. Liu and J. D. Bao, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044613 (2011).
[29] N. Wang, J. Tian, and W. Scheid, Phys. Rev. C 84, 061601
(2011).
[30] N. Wang, E. G. Zhao, W. Scheid, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C
85, 041601(R) (2012).
[31] J. Zhang, C. Wang, and Z. Ren, Nucl. Phys. A 909, 36 (2013).
[32] L. Liu, C. Shen, Q. Li, Y. Tu, X. Wang, and Y. Wang, Eur. Phys.
J. A 52, 35 (2016).
SYNTHESIS OF 292−303 119 SUPERHEAVY . . .
[33] L. Zhu, W. J. Xie, and F. S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 89, 024615
(2014).
[34] N. Ghahramanya and A. Ansari, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 287 (2016).
[35] X. J. Bao, Y. Gao, J. Q. Li, and H. F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 91,
011603 (2015).
[36] K. Siwek-Wilczyńska, T. Cap, M. Kowal, A. Sobiczewski, and
J. Wilzyński, Phys. Rev. C 86, 014611 (2012).
[37] R. W. Lougheed, J. H. Landrum, E. K. Hulet, J. F. Wild, R. J.
Dougan, A. D. Dougan, H. Gaggeler, M. Schadel, K. J. Moody,
K. E. Gregorich, and G. T. Seaborg, Phys. Rev. C 32, 1760
(1985).
[38] J. B. Roberto, C. W. Alexander, R. A. Boll, J. D. Burns, J.
G. Ezold, L. K. Felker, S. L. Hogle, and K. P. Rykaczewski,
Nuc. Phys. A 944, 99 (2015).
[39] W. Loveland, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 120 (2015).
[40] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, S. N. Dmitriev, Yu. V.
Lobanov, M. G. Itkis, A. N. Polyakov, Yu. S. Tsyganov, A. N.
Mezentsev, A. V. Yeremin, A. A. Voinov, E. A. Sokol, G. G.
Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M.
Sukhov, G. V. Buklanov, S. V. Shishkin, V. I. Chepygin, G. K.
Vostokin, N. V. Aksenov, M. Hussonnois, K. Subotic, V. I.
Zagrebaev, K. J. Moody, J. B. Patin, J. F. Wild, M. A. Stoyer, N. J.
Stoyer, D. A. Shaughnessy, J. M. Kenneally, P. A. Wilk, R. W.
Lougheed, H. W. Gäggeler, D. Schumann, H. Brucherseifer, and
R. Eichler, Phys. Rev. C 72, 034611 (2005).
[41] J. Blocki, J. Randrup, W. J. Swiatecki, and C. F. Tsang, Ann.
Phys. (NY) 105, 427 (1977).
[42] C. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 766 (1973).
[43] D. L. Hill and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 89, 1102 (1953).
[44] K. P. Santhosh and V. Safoora, Phys. Rev. C 94, 024623 (2016).
[45] K. P. Santhosh and V. Safoora, Phys. Rev. C 95, 064611 (2017).
[46] W. Loveland, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014612 (2007).
[47] G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, W. Scheid, and V. V. Volkov,
Nucl. Phys. A 633, 409 (1998).
[48] G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Nucl. Phys.
A 678, 24 (2000).
[49] Z. Q. Feng, G. M. Jin, F. Fu, and J.-Q. Li, Nucl. Phys. A 771,
50 (2006).
[50] J. D. Jackson, Can. J. Phys. 34, 767 (1956).
[51] R. Vandenbosch and J. R. Huizenga, Nuclear Fission (Aca-
demic, New York, 1973), p. 233.
[52] G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and W. Schied, Eur. Phys. J.
A 41, 235 (2009).
[53] A. S. Zubov, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, S. P. Ivanova,
and W. Scheid, Phys. Rev. C 65, 024308 (2002).
[54] P. Möller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, At. Data
Nucl. Data Tables 109-110, 1 (2016).
[55] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh.
Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov,
034610-9
PHYSICAL REVIEW C 96, 034610 (2017)
G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, B. N. Gikal, A. N.
Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, A. A. Voinov,
G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, M. G. Itkis, J. B.
Patin, K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, D. A.
Shaughnessy, J. M. Kenneally, P. A. Wilk, R. W. Lougheed, R.
I. Il’kaev, and S. P. Vesnovskii, Phys. Rev. C 70, 064609 (2004).
[56] P. A. Ellison, K. E. Gregorich, J. S. Berryman, D. L. Bleuel,
R. M. Clark, I. Dragojević, J. Dvorak, P. Fallon, C. Fineman-
Sotomayor, J. M. Gates, O. R. Gothe, I. Y. Lee, W. D. Loveland,
J. P. McLaughlin, S. Paschalis, M. Petri, J. Qian, L. Stavsetra,
M. Wiedeking, and H. Nitsche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 182701
(2010).
[57] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh.
Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov, G.
G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, B. N. Gikal, A. N. Mezentsev,
S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, A. A. Voinov, G. V.
Buklanov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, M. G. Itkis, J. B. Patin,
K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, D. A.
Shaughnessy, J. M. Kenneally, and R. W. Lougheed, Phys. Rev.
C 69, 054607 (2004).
[58] Ch. E. Düllmann, M. Schädel, A. Yakushev, A. Türler, K.
Eberhardt, J. V. Kratz, D. Ackermann, L.-L. Andersson, M.
Block, W. Brüchle, J. Dvorak, H. G. Essel, P. A. Ellison, J.
Even, J. M. Gates, A. Gorshkov, R. Graeger, K. E. Gregorich,
W. Hartmann, R.-D. Herzberg, F. P. Heßberger, D. Hild, A.
Hübner, E. Jäger, J. Khuyagbaatar, B. Kindler, J. Krier, N.
Kurz, S. Lahiri, D. Liebe, B. Lommel, M. Maiti, H. Nitsche,
J. P. Omtvedt, E. Parr, D. Rudolph, J. Runke, B. Schausten,
E. Schimpf, A. Semchenkov, J. Steiner, P. Thörle-Pospiech, J.
Uusitalo, M. Wegrzecki, and N. Wiehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104,
252701 (2010).
[59] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 34, R165
(2007).
[60] Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, J. M. Gostic,
J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, K. J. Moody, A.
N. Polyakov, A. V. Ramayya, J. B. Roberto, K. P. Rykaczewski,
R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughnessy, I. V. Shirokovsky, M. A.
Stoyer, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, Yu. S. Tsyganov, V. K.
Utyonkov, A. A. Voinov, and G. K. Vostokin, Phys. Rev. Lett.
108, 022502 (2012).
[61] S. Hofmann, S. Heinz, R. Mann, J. Maurer, J. Khuyagbaatar, D.
Ackermann, S. Antalic, W. Barth, M. Block, H. G. Burkhard, V.
F. Comas, L. Dahl, K. Eberhardt, J. Gostic, R. A. Henderson,
J. A. Heredia, F. P. Heßberger, J. M. Kenneally, B. Kindler,
I. Kojouharov, J. V. Kratz, R. Lang, M. Leino, B. Lommel,
K. J. Moody, G. Münzenberg, S. L. Nelson, K. Nishio, A. G.
Popeko, J. Runke, S. Saro, D. A. Shaughnessy, M. A. Stoyer, P.
Thörle-Pospiech, K. Tinschert, N. Trautmann, J. Uusitalo, P. A.
Wilk, and A. V. Yeremin, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 62 (2012).