The energy loss straggling of low Z ions in solids and gases

Abstract

We present a study on the energy loss straggling of low Z ions (H up to B) in different solid (Al, Ti, Cu, Zn, Ge, Au) and gaseous targets (Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe). This work includes on one side, a critical analysis of the available experimental data and possible non-statistical (rugosity and inhomogeneity) contributions. On the other side, theoretical calculations performed by using the shell-wise local plasma approximation and the comparison of these results with the experimental data and with other theoretical curves available in the literature. We find that for the ions here considered, the square of the energy loss straggling normalized to Bohr limit is independent of the ion nuclear charge and of the ion charge state, in the case of electrons bound to the projectile. This shows a clear Z 2 dependence of the square energy loss straggling, with Z being the ion nuclear charge. The tendency to Bohr limit at high energies, and the inconvenience of using Yang formula (Q. Yang etal, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res B 61, 149-155 (1991)) are also mentioned. The bases for the future development of a general formula for the energy loss straggling are introduced.

Stopping and straggling of 60–250-keV backscattered protons on nanometric Pt films

“…These models also rely on the FEG approximation but assume a linear interaction between the incoming proton and the medium as well as a simplified description of the target electrons. In addition, the shell-wise local plasma approximation (SLPA) [59], which is also linear and based on FEG, gives results that are close to the Chu formula (not shown here). For all these models the straggling grows as Z 2 1 for increasing projectile charge Z 1 .…”

Neonization method for stopping, mean excitation energy, straggling, and for total and differential ionization cross sections of CH4, NH3, H2O and FH by impact of heavy projectiles

“…The values displayed in tables 1 and 2 are the only inputs for SLPA calculations [55] of ionization cross sections, stopping power or any other moment of the energy loss. Once the binding energies and the electronic densities are known, we can use the SLPA in the usual way [65][66][67][68].…”

Electronic cross section, stopping power and energy-loss straggling of metals for swift protons, alpha particles and electrons

“…In general, the calculations based on optical data seem to coincide somewhat better than those based on REELS data (which seems to go in line with the somewhat better fulfillment of the sum rules), although the differences are not very significant in any case. We also compare with the recommended values of ICRU49 (ICRU, 1993) (cyan dash line), the semiempirical SRIM2013 code (Ziegler, 2013) (green short-dotted line) and the theoretical model by Montanari and Miraglia (Montanari and Miraglia, 2013).…”

“…(Palik and Ghosh, 1999;Werner et al, 2009), respectively. A comparison with experimental data (symbols) is made for ions stopping power (International Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Data Services, 2021) (the insets show the corresponding stopping power around its maximum value for the most recent experimental data (Kido and Hioki, 1983;Semrad et al, 1983;Bauer et al, 1984;Desmarais and Duggan, 1984;Khodyrev et al, 1984;Sirotinin et al, 1984;Kuldeep and Jain, 1985;Semrad et al, 1986;Harith et al, 1987;Majackij and Pucherov, 1988)), ions straggling (Hoffman and Powers, 1976;Nomura et al, 1976;Friedland and Kotze, 1981;Kido, 1987;Kawano and Kido, 1988;Kido and Koshikawa, 1991;Amadon and Lanford, 2006), electrons ICS (Sze et al, 1963;Kanter, 1970b;Lindau et al, 1976;Gergely et al, 2004;Tanuma et al, 2005;Bauer et al, 2015) and electrons stopping power (Al-Ahmad and Watt, 1983;Luo et al, 1991), as well as with other theoretical models (ICRU, 1993;Montanari and Miraglia, 2013;Ziegler, 2013;Brown et al, 2016). For the other lines, please see details on the text.…”

“…(Palik and Ghosh, 1999;Werner et al, 2009;Xu et al, 2017), respectively. A comparison with experimental data (symbols) is made for ions stopping power (International Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Data Services, 2021) (the insets show the corresponding stopping power around its maximum value for the most recent experimental data) electrons ICS (Pappas et al, 1991;van Dijken et al, 2002;Tanuma et al, 2005;Zdyb et al, 2013;Bauer et al, 2015) as well as with other theoretical models (ICRU, 1993;Montanari and Miraglia, 2013;Ziegler, 2013;Brown et al, 2016). For the other lines, please see details on the text.…”