Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Open Access

Unconventional Cu67 production using high-energy bremsstrahlung and cross section evaluation

M. Eslami*, D. G. Jenkins, and M. Bashkanov

  • School of Physics, Engineering and Technology, University of York, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom

  • *Contact author: mamad.eslami@alumni.york.ac.uk

Phys. Rev. C 112, 054603 – Published 7 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/954z-cn34

Abstract

Background: The use of theranostic isotope pairs is an emerging field in contemporary medicine, yet their clinical availability is often constrained by production and supply chain challenges. Among them, Cu67 has gained significant interest as the therapeutic counterpart in the Cu67/Cu64 theranostic pair. Traditional production methods rely on reactor-based or charged-particle accelerator routes, both of which face limitations in scalability and isotopic purity.

Purpose: This work investigates the photonuclear production of Cu67 via the Zn68(γ,p)Cu67 reaction, using high-energy bremsstrahlung photons from an electron accelerator. In addition to quantifying production yields and radionuclidic purity, the work provides spectrum-weighted average cross sections for multiple emission channels, serving as a test of reaction modeling under broad excitation conditions. The results inform both the optimization of Cu67 production for theranostic applications and the improvement of nuclear reaction theory in an underexplored energy regime.

Method: Natural zinc targets were irradiated using bremsstrahlung photons from an 855 MeV electron beam at the Mainzer Mikrotron (MAMI). The photon energy spectrum was measured via tagging and extended beyond the tagged range using Geant4 simulations. Reaction products were identified via gamma-ray spectroscopy, and spectrum-weighted average cross sections were derived. Theoretical cross sections were calculated using talys, incorporating giant dipole resonance and quasideuteron components of the photon absorption cross section. A model sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the influence of level density and photon strength function variations on the predicted cross sections.

Results: A production yield of 0.410(16) MBq µA−1h−1g−1 was measured for Cu67, with corresponding average cross sections determined from the bremsstrahlung spectrum. Yields and average cross sections were also measured for coproduced isotopes including Cu64, Cu61, Cu60, Zn69m, Zn65, Zn63, and Zn62. The relatively low production of nontarget isotopes indicates that the Zn68(γ,p)Cu67 reaction proceeds with favorable radionuclidic selectivity under the applied irradiation conditions. talys calculations showed good agreement with the (γ,p) channel, but neutron-emission and multi-particle channels were systematically overestimated. Model sensitivity points to assumptions in the photon strength function and level density, as well as the absence of explicit pion-resonance dynamics at high energies, as likely contributors to this behavior.

Conclusions: Photonuclear reactions provide a promising approach for high-purity Cu67 production. Theoretical discrepancies highlight limitations in current reaction models, especially for (γ,xn) channels at high energy. Beyond this, the scalability of electron-driven methods, enabled by existing high-current infrastructure and compact low-energy linacs, offers flexibility for both centralized and decentralized isotope production. Continued development of accelerator technologies and nuclear models will be essential for expanding access to photonuclear-produced medical isotopes.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Focus

Making Fresh Radionuclides with Leftover Gamma Rays

Published 7 November, 2025

Photons in high-energy probe beams that pass through their intended target can be “reused” for making promising nuclides in nuclear medicine, new experiments show.

See more in Physics

Article Text

References (93)

  1. S. Del Vecchio, A. Zannetti, R. Fonti, L. Pace, and M. Salvatore, Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 51, 152 (2007).
  2. F. Rösch, H. Herzog, and S. M. Qaim, Pharmaceuticals 10, 56 (2017).
  3. E. W. Price and C. Orvig, Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 260 (2014).
  4. A. G. Follacchio, S. M. De Feo, G. De Vincentis, F. Monteleone, and M. Liberatore, Curr. Radiopharm. 11, 22 (2018).
  5. G. Ting, C.-H. Chang, and H.-E. Wang, Anticancer Res. 29, 4107 (2009).
  6. P. A. Schubiger, R. Alberto, and A. Smith, Bioconjugate Chem. 7, 165 (1996).
  7. Y. Sugo, K. Hashimoto, M. Kawabata, H. Saeki, S. Sato, K. Tsukada, and Y. Nagai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 023201 (2017).
  8. K. Zimmermann, J. Grünberg, M. Honer, S. Ametamey, P. August Schubiger, and I. Novak-Hofer, Nucl. Med. Biol. 30, 417 (2003).
  9. H. Junde, H. Xiaolong, and J. Tuli, Nucl. Data Sheets 106, 159 (2005).
  10. A. Boschi, P. Martini, E. Janevik-Ivanovska, and A. Duatti, Drug Discov. Today 23, 1489 (2018).
  11. F. Peng, X. Lu, J. Janisse, O. Muzik, and A. F. Shields, J. Nucl. Med. 47, 1649 (2006).
  12. Z.-H. Jin et al., Nucl. Med. Commun. 38, 347 (2017).
  13. B. M. Katz and A. Barnea, J. Biol. Chem. 265, 2017 (1990).
  14. K. Knogler, J. Grünberg, K. Zimmermann, S. Cohrs, M. Honer, S. Ametamey, P. Altevogt, M. Fogel, P. A. Schubiger, and I. Novak-Hofer, Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 603 (2007).
  15. I. Novak-Hofer and A. P. Schubiger, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 29, 821 (2002).
  16. N. A. Smith, D. L. Bowers, and D. A. Ehst, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 70, 2377 (2012).
  17. T. Katabuchi, S. Watanabe, N. S. Ishioka, Y. Iida, H. Hanaoka, K. Endo, and S. Matsuhashi, J. Radiol. Nucl. Chem. 277, 467 (2008).
  18. D. G. Medvedev, L. F. Mausner, G. E. Meinken, S. O. Kurczak, H. Schnakenberg, C. J. Dodge, E. M. Korach, and S. C. Srivastava, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 70, 423 (2012).
  19. D. J. sr Jamriska, W. A. Taylor, M. A. Ott, R. C. Heaton, D. R. Phillips, and M. M. Fowler, J. Radiol. Nucl. Chem. 195, 263 (1995).
  20. K. Hilgers, T. Stoll, Y. Skakun, H. Coenen, and S. Qaim, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 59, 343 (2003).
  21. J. Kozempel, K. Abbas, F. Simonelli, A. Bulgheroni, U. Holzwarth, and N. Gibson, Radiochim. Acta 100, 419 (2012).
  22. T. Ohya, K. Nagatsu, H. Suzuki, M. Fukada, K. Minegishi, M. Hanyu, and M.-R. Zhang, Nucl. Med. Biol. 59, 56 (2018).
  23. Y. Skakun and S. Qaim, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 60, 33 (2004).
  24. M. Kawabata, K. Hashimoto, H. Saeki, N. Sato, S. Motoishi, K. Takakura, C. Konno, and Y. Nagai, J. Radiol. Nucl. Chem. 303, 1205 (2015).
  25. T. Kin et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 82, 034201 (2013).
  26. N. Sato et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 83, 073201 (2014).
  27. I. Spahn, H. H. Coenen, and S. M. Qaim, Radiochim. Acta 92, 183 (2004).
  28. A. Gopalakrishna et al., Radiochim. Acta 106, 549 (2018).
  29. V. N. Starovoitova, L. Tchelidze, and D. P. Wells, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 85, 39 (2014).
  30. V. N. Starovoitova, P. L. Cole, and T. L. Grimm, J. Radiol. Nucl. Chem. 305, 127 (2015).
  31. M. Yagi and K. Kondo, Int. J. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 29, 757 (1978).
  32. A. Koning, S. Hilaire, and S. Goriely, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 131 (2023).
  33. R. Schwarzbach, K. Zimmermann, P. Bläuenstein, A. Smith, and P. August Schubiger, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 46, 329 (1995).
  34. A. Dasgupta, L. Mausner, and S. Srivastava, Int. J. Radiat. Appl. Instrum. A 42, 371 (1991).
  35. S. Mirzadeh, L. Mausner, and S. Srivastava, Int. J. Radiat. Appl. Instrum. A 37, 29 (1986).
  36. S. A. Brühlmann, M. Walther, M. Kreller, F. Reissig, H.-J. Pietzsch, T. Kniess, and K. Kopka, Pharmaceuticals 16, 314 (2023).
  37. M. J. Merrick, D. A. Rotsch, A. Tiwari, J. Nolen, T. Brossard, J. Song, T. J. Wadas, J. J. Sunderland, and S. A. Graves, Phys. Med. Biol. 66, 035002 (2021).
  38. N. Marceau, T. Kruck, D. McConnell, and N. Aspin, Int. J. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 21, 667 (1970).
  39. G. Hovhannisyan, T. Bakhshiyan, and R. Dallakyan, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B 498, 48 (2021).
  40. N. I. Aizatsky, N. P. Diky, A. N. Dovbnya, D. Ehst, Yu. V. Lyashko, V. I. Nikiforov, A. Eh. Tenishev, A. V. Torgovkin, V. L. Uvarov, V. A. Shevchenko, and B. I. Shramenko, Probl. At. Sci. Technol. 53, 140 (2010).
  41. V. Starovoitova, D. Foote, J. Harris, V. Makarashvili, C. R. Segebade, V. Sinha, and D. P. Wells, AIP Conf. Proc. 1336, 502 (2011).
  42. M. Kawabata, S. Motoishi, A. Ohta, A. Motomura, H. Saeki, K. Tsukada, S. Hashimoto, N. Iwamoto, Y. Nagai, and K. Hashimoto, J. Radiol. Nucl. Chem. 330, 913 (2021).
  43. H. Herminghaus, A. Feder, K. Kaiser, W. Manz, and H. Schmitt, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 138, 1 (1976).
  44. A2 Collaboration, official website, https://wwwa2.kph.uni-mainz.de/.
  45. E. Mornacchi, Measurement of the proton scalar polarizabilities at MAMI, Ph.D. thesis, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, (2021), https://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-6051.
  46. J. Allison et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 835, 186 (2016).
  47. S. T. Perkins, D. E. Cullen, and S. M. Seltzer, Tables and graphs of electron-interaction cross sections from 10 eV to 100 GeV derived from the LLNL Evaluated Electron Data Library (EEDL), Z = 1–100, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Technical Report, 1991, https://doi.org/10.2172/5691165.
  48. V. Ivanchenko et al., EPJ Web Conf. 245, 02009 (2020).
  49. R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban, GEANT: Detector description and simulation tool, Oct. 1994, CERN Program Library, long writeup W5013, CERN, 1993, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634.
  50. Y.-S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 815 (1974).
  51. NEA, PENELOPE 2018: A code system for Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport: Workshop proceedings, Barcelona, OECD Publishing, Paris, Spain, 28 January – 1 February, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1787/32da5043-en.
  52. Zinc foil, Goodfellow online technical data sheet for product, https://www.goodfellow.com/uk/zinc-foil-1000225674.
  53. Calibration source, Eckert & Ziegler NG3 nuclide mixture calibration standard, https://www.ezag.com/products/isotope-products/isotrak-calibration-sources/reference-sources/geometry-sources/nuclide-mixtures-ng1-to-ng6/.
  54. J. Meija et al., Pure Appl. Chem. 88, 293 (2016).
  55. J. H. Hubbell and S. M. Seltzer, Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients (version 1.4), http://physics.nist.gov/xaamdi.
  56. M. B. Chadwick, P. Obložinský, P. E. Hodgson, and G. Reffo, Phys. Rev. C 44, 814 (1991).
  57. R. Capote et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 110, 3107 (2009).
  58. J. S. Levinger, Phys. Rev. 84, 43 (1951).
  59. J. R. Wu and C. C. Chang, Phys. Rev. C 16, 1812 (1977).
  60. J. Levinger, Phys. Lett. B 82, 181 (1979).
  61. L. A. Currie, Anal. Chem. 40, 586 (1968).
  62. T. Stoll, S. Kastleiner, Y. N. Shubin, H. H. Coenen, and S. M. Qaim, Radiochim. Acta 90, 309 (2002).
  63. T. Ericson, Adv. Phys. 9, 425 (1960).
  64. A. Gilbert and A. G. W. Cameron, Can. J. Phys. 43, 1446 (1965).
  65. W. Dilg, W. Schantl, H. Vonach, and M. Uhl, Nucl. Phys. A 217, 269 (1973).
  66. A. V. Ignatyuk, K. K. Istekov, and G. N. Smirenkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 29, 875 (1979).
  67. A. V. Ignatyuk, J. L. Weil, S. Raman, and S. Kahane, Phys. Rev. C 47, 1504 (1993).
  68. S. Goriely, F. Tondeur, and J. Pearson, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 77, 311 (2001).
  69. S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, and A. J. Koning, Phys. Rev. C 78, 064307 (2008).
  70. S. Hilaire, M. Girod, S. Goriely, and A. J. Koning, Phys. Rev. C 86, 064317 (2012).
  71. J. Kopecky and M. Uhl, Phys. Rev. C 41, 1941 (1990).
  72. D. Brink, Nucl. Phys. 4, 215 (1957).
  73. P. Axel, Phys. Rev. 126, 671 (1962).
  74. S. Goriely and E. Khan, Nucl. Phys. A 706, 217 (2002).
  75. S. Goriely, E. Khan, and M. Samyn, Nucl. Phys. A 739, 331 (2004).
  76. S. Goriely, Phys. Lett. B 436, 10 (1998).
  77. I. Daoutidis and S. Goriely, Phys. Rev. C 86, 034328 (2012).
  78. S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, S. Péru, and K. Sieja, Phys. Rev. C 98, 014327 (2018).
  79. V. Plujko, O. Gorbachenko, R. Capote, and P. Dimitriou, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 123-124, 1 (2018).
  80. S. Goriely and V. Plujko, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014303 (2019).
  81. S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, and A. J. Koning, Astron. Astrophys. 487, 767 (2008).
  82. S. S. Dietrich and B. L. Berman, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 38, 199 (1988).
  83. A. Koning, D. Rochman, and S. van der Marck, Nucl. Data Sheets 118, 187 (2014).
  84. C. M. Tarbert et al. (Crystal Ball at MAMI and A2 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 242502 (2014).
  85. C. M. Tarbert, Coherent π0 photoproduction on nuclei, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2007, https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/3501.
  86. J. Ahrens, Nucl. Phys. A 446, 229 (1985).
  87. N. Bianchi, V. Muccifora, E. De Sanctis, A. Fantoni, P. Levi Sandri, E. Polli, A. R. Reolon, P. Rossi, M. Anghinolfi, P. Corvisiero, M. Ripani, M. Sanzone, M. Taiuti, and A. Zucchiatti, Phys. Rev. C 54, 1688 (1996).
  88. P. Carlos, H. Beil, R. Bergére, J. Fagot, A. Leprêtre, A. De miniac, and A. Veyssiére, Nucl. Phys. A 431, 573 (1984).
  89. T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267 (1979).
  90. S. P. D. Mangles, C. D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, A. G. R. Thomas, J. L. Collier, A. E. Dangor, E. J. Divall, P. S. Foster, J. G. Gallacher, C. J. Hooker, D. A. Jaroszynski, A. J. Langley, W. B. Mori, P. A. Norreys, F. S. Tsung, R. Viskup, B. R. Walton, and K. Krushelnick, Nature (London) 431, 535 (2004).
  91. J. Faure, Y. Glinec, A. Pukhov, S. Kiselev, S. Gordienko, E. Lefebvre, J.-P. Rousseau, F. Burgy, and V. Malka, Nature (London) 431, 541 (2004).
  92. J. Faure, C. Rechatin, A. Norlin, A. Lifschitz, Y. Glinec, and V. Malka, Nature (London) 444, 737 (2006).
  93. J. Krämer, G. Blokesch, M. Grewe, B. Keune, V. Kümper, M. Pekeler, C. Piel, C. Quitmann, T. Trinh, and P. vom Stein, in Proceedings of the 31st International Linear Accelerator Conference (LINAC'22) (JACoW, Geneva, 2022), pp. 35–37.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation