98ZR 98Y B- DECAY (2.32 S) 2017UR03,1994ST31,1977SI0520NDS 202004
98ZR H TYP=FUL$AUT=Jun Chen, Balraj Singh$CIT=NDS 164, 1 (2020)$
98ZR2 H CUT=15-Feb-2020$
98ZR c 2017Ur03: {+98}Y source obtained as a fission fragment and using
98ZR2c Lohengrin separator. Measured E|g, I|g, |b|g-coin |g|g-coin,
98ZR3c using two clover Ge detectors for |g detection and three |b detectors.
98ZR4c The A=98 ions were deposited on a tape whose movement was correlated
98ZR5c with the beam ON and beam OFF cycles. Deduced levels, J|p, |b feedings,
98ZR6c multipolarities, mixing ratios.
98ZR7c Angular correlation measurements were made in the study of prompt
98ZR8c |g rays from {+235}U(n,F|g) and {+252}Cf SF decay. Polarization
98ZR9c measurement for a |g-ray cascade with 1801.6-keV |g ray was also
98ZRAc made in {+235}U(n,F|g). See these two datasets for data from Table IX
98ZRBc in 2017Ur03
98ZR c 1994St31 (also 1988StZS): E|g, I|g, |g|g(|q) using JOSEF separator
98ZR2c at Julich.
98ZR c 1977Si05: measured E|g, I|g, |g|g-coin, |b, |b|g-coin, (ce)|g(t).
98ZR2c Two independent measurements of E|g and I|g were made, one using
98ZR3c JOSEF separator at Julich and the other LOHENGRIN at Grenoble.
98ZR4c Separate E|g and I|g data, as well as averages of the two were
98ZR5c reported by 1977Si05
98ZR c 2010Be30: A=98 nuclei produced by thermal neutron-induced fission out
98ZR2c of a 400 |mg/cm{+2} {+235}U target and selected by the Lohengrin mass
98ZR3c separator at the high-flux reactor of the Institut Laue-Langevin in
98ZR4c Grenoble, France. Detector array of a thin plastic scintillator,
98ZR5c a LaBr{-3}(Ce) scintillation detector (LaBr) and a high-purity
98ZR6c germanium clover detector (HPGe). Measured |b|g|g-timing, lifetimes
98ZR7c of both yrast and non-yrast states.
98ZR c Others:
98ZR c 1979Bo26: measured E|g, I|g
98ZR c T{-1/2}: 1983Re10, 1981En05, 1979En02
98ZR c |b|g-coin, Q{+-} measurement: 1988GrZX, 1978St02
98ZR cB IB$Deduced by evaluators from |g+ce intensity balances. Deduced I|b
98ZR2cB values to 0, 854, 1223, 1590 and 1843 levels are consistent with no
98ZR3cB feeding to these levels, as expected from |DJ|p involved
98ZR cB IB(Z)$No |b feeding is expected to this level if
98ZR2cB J|p({+98}Y isomer)=(7+,6+). Apparent feeding reflects incomplete
98ZR3cB decay scheme
98ZR cB LOGFT$Deduced by evaluators using the LOGFT code.
98ZR cG $A |g with E|g=1267.8, I|g=0.3 reported by 1994St31 is omitted
98ZR2cG here as a 6+ to 2+ transition is unlikely
98ZR cG E,RI$From 2017Ur03, unless otherwise stated. Quoted values of I|g are
98ZR2cG relative to I|g(1222.9)=100, the total intensity from the two
98ZR3cG activities in {+98}Y
98ZR cG RI(x),TI(y)$Assigned by evaluators from intensity balances and using
98ZR2cG branching ratios from intensity data in Table VII of 2017Ur03
98ZR cG E(A)$Precise E|g from 1979Bo26 (curved-crystal data)
98ZR cG M,MR$From the Adopted Gammas. Assumed assignments given
98ZR2cG in square brackets are from |DJ|p in this dataset
98ZR cL $Level scheme is based on the works of 1977Si05 and 1994St31, and
98ZR2cL extended significantly by 2017Ur03
98ZR cL E$From a least-squares fit to E|g data
98ZR cL J$From the Adopted Levels
98Y P 465.7 7 (7+,6+) 2.32 S 8 8992 12
98Y cP E,J,T$From {+98}Y Adopted Levels
98Y cP QP$From 2017Wa10
98ZR N 2.89 9 2.89 9 0.90 10 1.1112
98ZR cN NR$Deduced by evaluators from summed intensity of |g+ce to g.s. equal
98ZR2cN to 96.6 {I10} from %|b{+-}n=3.44 {I95} of the 2.32-s isomer.
98ZR3cN 2017Ur03 give |g-normalization factor=2.45 {I36} by using
98ZR4cN absolute intensities of high-energy |g rays from {+98}Y isomer decay
98ZR5cN in a previous ENSDF evaluation published by 2003Si07
98ZR cN BR$%|b{+-}=90 {I10}, assuming %IT<20 (or 10% {I10}) for the decay
98ZR2cN of the 2.32-s isomer from {+98}Y Adopted Levels
98ZR PN 3
98ZR L 0.0 0+
98ZR L 854.09 9 0+
98ZR G 854.09 9 E0 1.1 1 y
98ZR cG $Energy of E0 transition from level energy difference
98ZR cG TI$from intensity balance
98ZR L 1222.97 8 2+
98ZR G 368.8 1 0.76 7 [E2] 0.01087 xC
98ZRS G KC=0.00950 14$LC=0.001145 16$MC=0.000199 3
98ZRS G NC=2.77E-5 4$OC=1.749E-6 25
98ZR cG $E|g=368.6, I|g=0.7 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=368.5 {I2}, I|g=0.5 {I2} (1977Si05)
98ZR G 1222.9 1 30.2 8 E2 xC
98ZR cG $E|g=1222.8, I|g=35.0 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=122.8 {I2} (1977Si05)
98ZR L 1590.83 8 2+
98ZR G 367.8 1 0.24 3 [M1+E2] x
98ZR cG $E|g=367.1, I|g=0.4 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=367.6 {I2} (1977Si05)
98ZR G 736.8 1 0.30 3 [E2] x
98ZR cG $E|g=736.7 {I2} (1977Si05)
98ZR G 1590.9 1 2.04 17 [E2] x
98ZR cG $E|g=1590.7, I|g=2.5 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=1590.7 {I2}, I|g|?1 (1977Si05)
98ZR L 1806.23 8 3-
98ZR B 1.8 13 7.1 4 Z ?
98ZRS B EAV=3496.6 58
98ZR G 215.5 2 0.36 10[E1] 0.01222
98ZRS G KC=0.01078 16$LC=0.001199 17$MC=0.000207 3
98ZRS G NC=2.91E-5 5$OC=1.96E-6 3
98ZR cG RI$0.4 {I1} in 2017Ur03 (Table VIII) is probably the total
98ZR2cG intensity from the two activities in {+98}Y. Evaluators have subtracted
98ZR3cG 0.044 {I12} units to account for contribution from the 0.548-s g.s.
98ZR4cG decay obtained from intensity balance at 1806 level in {+98}Y |b{+-}
98ZR5cG decay (0.548 s)
98ZR G 583.258 30 5.34 22E1 AC
98ZR cG $E|g=583.2 {I1} (2017Ur03)
98ZR cG $E|g=583.3, I|g=4.6 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=583.3 {I2}, I|g=6.5 {I5}(1977Si05)
98ZR cG RI$6.0 {I2} in 2017Ur03 (Table VIII) is probably the total
98ZR2cG intensity from the two activities in {+98}Y. Evaluators have subtracted
98ZR3cG 0.66 {I10} units to account for contribution from the 0.548-s
98ZR4cG g.s. decay obtained from intensity balance at 1806 level in {+98}Y
98ZR5cG |b{+-} decay (0.548 s)
98ZR L 1843.47 8 4+ 20 PS 6
98ZR cL J$|g|g(|q) (1988StZS,1994St31) suggests J=3.
98ZR cL T$from |b|g(t) (2010Be30). Other: 28 ps {I12} (quoted by 1994ST31 from
98ZR2cL thesis by M. Liang, University of Cologne (1992)
98ZR G 252.7 2 0.4 1 [E2] 0.0392
98ZRS G KC=0.0340 5$LC=0.00434 7$MC=0.000754 11
98ZRS G NC=0.0001038 15$OC=6.08E-6 9
98ZR cG $E|g=253.1 {I2}, I|g=1.5 {I10} (1977Si05), |g could also correspond to
98ZR2cG the proposed placement of a 253.4|g from 4545 level in 2017Ur03
98ZR G 620.505 19 23.0 7 E2 AC
98ZR cG $E|g=620.5 {I1} (2017Ur03)
98ZR cG $E|g=620.7, I|g=27.6 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=620.5 {I2}, I|g=27.0 {I20} (1977Si05)
98ZR cG $(620|g)(1223|g)(|q): A{-2}=-0.09 {I3} (1988StZS)
98ZR L 2047.76 10 4+
98ZR B 7.5 14 6.4 1 Z ?
98ZRS B EAV=3380.4 58
98ZR G 204.3 1 0.5 1 [M1+E2]
98ZR G 241.5 1 3.6 3 [E1] C
98ZR cG $E|g=241.7, I|g=2.5 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=241.5, I|g=5.6 (1984Be50), assigned incorrectly to the decay of
98ZR2cG {+98}Y g.s.
98ZR cG $E|g=241.5 {I2}, I|g=2.5 {I5} (1977Si05)
98ZR G 456.8 2 0.4 1 [E2]
98ZR cG $E|g=456.5, I|g=0.2 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR G 824.8 2 1.0 1 E2
98ZR cG $E|g=824.5, I|g=0.9 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR L 2276.98 9 (4+)
98ZR B 2.1 8 6.9 2 Z ?
98ZRS B EAV=3270.1 58
98ZR G 433.5 1 0.5 1
98ZR cG $E|g=433.7, I|g=0.8 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR G 686.2 1 1.4 1
98ZR cG $E|g=685.6, I|g=1.9 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR G 1053.9 1 1.4 1
98ZR cG $E|g=1053.8, I|g=1.6 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR L 2491.03 8 6+ 10 PS LT
98ZR cL J$|g|g(|q) (1988StZS,1994St31) suggested J=4.
98ZR cL T$from |b|g(t) (2010Be30).
98ZR B 20 4 5.9 1
98ZRS B EAV=3167.1 58
98ZR G 647.580 30 22.4 7 E2 AC
98ZR cG E$note that value from 1979Bo26 is in disagreement with 647.1 {I1}
98ZR2cG from 2017Ur03 by |?3 |s
98ZR cG $E|g=647.5, I|g=23.2 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=647.3 {I2}, I|g=20.0 {I20} (1977Si05)
98ZR cG $(647|g)(620|g)(|q): A{-2}=-0.04 {I7}. (647|g)[620|g](1223|g)(|q):
98ZR2cG A{-2}=-0.06 {I3} (1988StZS)
98ZR L 2800.25 10 5-
98ZR B 4.4 11 6.4 1
98ZRS B EAV=3018.3 58
98ZR G 752.5 1 2.4 2 C
98ZR cG $E|g=752.7, I|g=2.0 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=752.6 {I2}, I|g=2.5 {I10} (1977Si05)
98ZR G 956.6 2 0.3 1
98ZR G 994.0 1 0.9 2
98ZR cG $E|g=994.0, I|g=0.7 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR L 3065.14 13 5(-)
98ZR cL E$level proposed by 2017Ur03
98ZR B 1.3 6 6.9 2
98ZRS B EAV=2890.8 58
98ZR G 1258.9 1 0.5 2 Q
98ZR L 3117.14 12 (6+)
98ZR B 2.9 10 6.5 2
98ZRS B EAV=2865.8 58
98ZR G 840.1 1 1.8 2
98ZR cG $E|g=839.7, I|g=2.3 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=840.3 {I2}, I|g=2.5 {I10} (1977Si05), but assigned to the decay
98ZR2cG of {+98}Y g.s.
98ZR G 1273.7 2 0.5 2 Q
98ZR L 3216.34 22 8+
98ZR cL E$level proposed by 2017Ur03
98ZR B 1.0 3 7.0 2
98ZRS B EAV=2818.0 58
98ZR G 725.3 2 0.4 1 E2
98ZR L 3249.05 23 (5,6,7-)
98ZR cL E$level proposed by 2017Ur03
98ZR B 1.0 3 6.9 2
98ZRS B EAV=2802.3 58
98ZR G 448.8 2 0.4 1
98ZR L 4278.85 13
98ZR B 3.9 7 6.0 1
98ZRS B EAV=2306.8 58
98ZR G 1787.8 1 1.5 2
98ZR cG $E|g=1787.1, I|g=1.9 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=1787.3 {I5}, I|g=1.5 {I3} (1977Si05)
98ZR L 4292.46 11 6+
98ZR cL J$|g|g(|q) (1988StZS,1994St31) suggests J=6.
98ZR B 43 6 5.0 1
98ZRS B EAV=2300.2 58
98ZR G 1174.9 3 1.2 2
98ZR cG E$1174.2 {I2} in 2017Ur03 fits poorly in the level scheme. Value
98ZR2cG of 1174.9 from 1994St31 with an assigned uncertainty of 0.3 keV
98ZR3cG is used here, instead.
98ZR cG $E|g=1174.9, I|g=2.0 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR G 1492.0 2 1.5 2
98ZR cG $E|g=1492.5, I|g=1.5 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR G 1801.6 1 13.0 4 M1+E2 +0.17 8 C
98ZR cG $E|g=1801.5, I|g=17.4 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR cG $E|g=1801.6 {I5}, I|g=16.5 {I15} (1977Si05)
98ZR cG $(1801|g)(647|g)(|q): A{-2}=-0.07 {I4}; (1801|g)[647|g](620|g)(|q):
98ZR2cG A{-2}=--0.03 {I5}; (1801|g)[647|g][620|g](1223|g)(|q): A{-2}=+0.08 {I7}
98ZR3cG (1988StZS)
98ZR G 2015.4 2 0.7 1
98ZR cG $E|g=2015.6, I|g=0.9 (1994St31,1988StZS)
98ZR G 2244.0 4 0.2 1
98ZR G 2448.8 2 0.4 1
98ZR L 4545.86 15 (7+)
98ZR cL E$level proposed by 2017Ur03
98ZR B 1.6 4 6.3 1
98ZRS B EAV=2178.4 58
98ZR G 253.4 1 0.6 1 [M1+E2] 0.028 11
98ZRS G KC=0.024 10$LC=0.0030 13$MC=0.00052 23
98ZRS G NC=7.E-5 3$OC=4.5E-6 16
98ZR L 6415+X R
98ZR cL E$x<3043 {I15} from Q(|b{+-})({+98m}Y)-S(n)({+98}Zr), where
98ZR2cL Q(|b{+-})=9458 {I12} for {+98}Y isomer decay, and S(n)=6415 {I8}
98ZR B 3.44 95
98ZR cB IB$from %|b{+-}n=3.44 {I95} for decay of {+98}Y isomer