The 13 MeV cyclotron target for a dual production of 89Zr and 32P
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32523/ejpfm.2026100308Keywords:
89Zr, 32P, Cyclotron target, Simultaneous production, PHITS simulation, Response Surface MethodologyAbstract
The production of medical radioisotopes using conventional cyclotrons still faces challenges such as relatively high production costs and limited efficiency when each radionuclide is produced using separate targets. Using multi-material targets offers the chance to produce several radionuclides in a single irradiation process. However, designing an optimal target isn’t simple because the interaction between the secondary neutron field and the target geometry can affect the radionuclide yield. To address this problem, this study designed and optimized a 13 MeV cyclotron target system utilizing nat Y and natS for the simultaneous production of 89Zr and 32P. A combined approach of Particle and Heavy Ion Transport Code System (PHITS) simulations and Response Surface Methodology (RSM) was used to evaluate five geometrical factors systematically. These factors included the length ( LY ) and radius ( RY ) of yttrium, the forward ( LS ) and backward ( BS ) lengths, and the thickness ( TS ) of sulfur. The RSM predicted that 89Zr and 32P yields of 52.173 MBq/ m Ah and 0.014171 MBq/ m Ah, respectively, for the optimized configuration with: LY 0.0254 cm, RY 0.3000 cm, LS 1.9124 cm, BS 1.9124 cm, and TS 1.9124 cm. Additional PHITS simulations using that configuration confirmed the RSM prediction of 89Zr and 32P yields, with deviations of 3.91% and 3.60%. These simulation results suggest that the proposed dual-target configuration can improve the production performance of the investigated radioisotopes and warrants further experimental investigation.
References
[1] G.K. Mulholland, M.R. Kilbourn, J.J. Moskwa, Int. J. Rad. Appl. Instrum. [A] 41(12) (1990) 1193–1199.
[2] S. Lahiri, B. Mukhopadhyay, N.R. Das, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 48(7) (1997) 883–886.
[3] F. Groppi et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. At. 213 (2004) 373–377.
[4] F. Borgna et al., Molecules 23(10) (2018) 2437.
[5] L. Auditore, E. Amato, S. Baldari, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 122 (2017) 229–234.
[6] F.K. Amanuel, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 217 (2025) 111599.
[7] S. Suharni, N. Prabaningrum, I. Kambali, J. Teknol. Sci. Eng. 87(2) (2025) 263–268.
[8] I.R. Febrianto, A.R. Antariksawan, S. Syarip, K. Rezon, Sihana, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 200(5) (2026) 1094–1101.
[9] S. Syarip et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 230 (2026) 112473.
[10] T. Sato et al., J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 61(1) (2024) 127–135.
[11] A.J. Koning, D. Rochman, J.-Ch. Sublet, N. Dzysiuk, M. Fleming, S. Van Der Marck, Nucl. Data Sheets 155 (2019) 1–55.
[12] A. Boudard, J. Cugnon, J.-C. David, S. Leray, D. Mancusi, Phys. Rev. C 87(1) (2013) 014606.
[13] K. Iida, A. Kohama, K. Oyamatsu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76(4) (2007) 044201.
[14] E.C. Dijkers et al., Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 87(5) (2010) 586–592.
[15] F.Y. Prastha, Z. Su’ud, I. Kambali, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 225 (2025) 112058.
[16] D. Zhai et al., Drug Deliv. 30(1) (2023) 2168791.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


