% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence % of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older. % Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or % “biber”. @ARTICLE{Uddin:1042400, author = {Uddin, M. Shuza and Spahn, Ingo and Basunia, M. Shamsuzzoha and Voyles, Andrew S. and Spellerberg, Stefan and Hussain, Mazhar and Sudár, Sándor and Bernstein, Lee A. and Neumaier, Bernd and Qaim, Syed M.}, title = {{A}n overview of production routes of the non-standard positron emitter 86g{Y} with emphasis on a comparative analysis of the 86{S}r(p,n)- and 86{S}r(d,2n)-reactions}, journal = {Radiochimica acta}, volume = {113}, number = {5}, issn = {0033-8230}, address = {Berlin}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, reportid = {FZJ-2025-02554}, pages = {345 - 351}, year = {2025}, abstract = {A very brief overview of the hitherto investigated production routes of 86gY is given, and a comparative analysis of its production via the two low-energy reactions, namely (p,n) and (d,2n) on $96.4\%$ enriched 86Sr as target material, is presented. Based on our recent cross- section measurements, the calculated yields of 86gY via the two reactions were compared, and the levels of co-produced isotopic impurities were estimated. At low-energy medical cyclotrons (Ep < 20 MeV; Ed <10 MeV) the use of the (p, n) reaction is superior, both in terms of the yield of 86gY and the levels of radionuclidic impurities. At medium-sized cyclotrons, on the other hand, the (d, 2n) reaction leads to higher yield of 86gY, but the level of radionuclidic impurities is also higher. The method of choice for production of 86gY thus remains the (p,n) reaction on enriched 86Sr.}, cin = {INM-5}, ddc = {610}, cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-5-20090406}, pnm = {5253 - Neuroimaging (POF4-525)}, pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253}, typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16}, UT = {WOS:001442433300001}, doi = {10.1515/ract-2024-0375}, url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1042400}, }