For several years, Paul and Schinner carried out statistical comparisons between experimental data of electronic stopping power and various tables and programs. See for example: H. Paul and A. Schinner (2001), "An empirical approach to the stopping power of solids and gases for ions from 3Li to 18Ar", Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B 179, 299.
The purpose is to determine the reliability of the tables and programs, and also to find unreliable experimental data sets (see sect. E below).
A. Method
For a certain range of Z1, for a certain range of target atomic numbers Z2, and for every data point in a certain range of specific energy E/A1 (where Z1 is the projectile’s atomic number, E its energy and A1 its mass number), we calculate the normalized difference 
. Here, 
is the mass stopping power, ρ is the density, 
is the linear stopping power, and x is the path length. In every range of specific energy, we then determine the mean normalized difference 
and its standard deviation 
, using our program „Judge“ [1]. Here, 
signifies an unweighted average, Sexp is an experimental stopping power value taken from our collection, and Stable the corresponding value from a particular stopping power table or program. A small |Δ| usually signifies good agreement between table and data, and the standard deviation σ is related to the accuracy of the experimental data. If |Δ| is small, as we frequently find, σ may be taken as a measure of the accuracy of the table, as determined from experiment. The number of data points is also given in the tables, as an indication of the size of the data base.
The averages are unweighted, except for the data that were excluded from the analysis, i.e., given weight zero, since they were found in conflict with respect to other data of the same Z1-Z2-combination (where Z2 is the atomic number of the target element). Solids and gases (i.e., substances that solid or gaseous, resp., at normal temperature and pressure) are treated separately.
B. Statistical Analysis for Protons and Alphas in Elements
The following statistical analyses are taken from reference [2]. The data are compared to tables by Andersen and Ziegler [3]; Ziegler [4]; Janni [5]; Ziegler, Biersack and Littmark [6]; ICRU Report 49 [7]; and SRIM 2003 [8]. The latter two give the best agreement.
|
Table B1. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for H ions in 17 solid elements |
||||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0.001 - 0.01 |
0.01 - 0.1 |
0.1 - 1.0 |
1 - 10 |
10 - 100 |
0.001 - 100 |
|
No. of points |
207 |
1272 |
2393 |
1156 |
196 |
5224 |
|
AZ 77 |
5.5 ±12 |
-1.2 ±12 |
-3.4 ±8.3 |
-1.1 ±3.9 |
-0.7 ±0.6 |
-1.9 ±8.9 |
|
J 82 |
11.7 ±12 |
2.1 ±11 |
-1.1 ±7.3 |
-0.9 ±3.7 |
-0.2 ±0.5 |
0.2 ±8.4 |
|
ZBL 85 |
-7.0 ± 24 |
-1.2 ± 12 |
-3.0 ± 7.8 |
-0.3 ± 4.2 |
0.3 ± 2.1 |
-2.0 ± 9.5 |
|
ICRU 49 |
5.8 ± 12 |
0.8 ± 11 |
-0.7 ± 7.1 |
-0.2 ± 4.1 |
0.0 ± 0.5 |
0.1 ± 7.9 |
|
SRIM 2003 |
4.8 ± 13 |
0.6 ± 11 |
-0.9 ± 6.8 |
-0.6 ± 3.8 |
-0.1 ± 0.6 |
-0.2 ± 7.7 |
|
Table B2. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for H ions in all elemental gases except F, Cl, Rn |
||||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0.001 - 0.01 |
0.01 - 0.1 |
0.1 - 1.0 |
1 - 10 |
10 - 100 |
0.001 - 100 |
|
No. of points |
116 |
329 |
535 |
303 |
11 |
1294 |
|
AZ 77 |
-1.2 ±6.5 |
-1.1 ±5.1 |
-1.8 ±4.2 |
-0.3 ±2.0 |
-0.1 ±0.3 |
-1.2 ±4.3 |
|
J 82 |
-1.1 ±9.4 |
-0.1 ±4.6 |
0.5 ±3.9 |
0.9 ±3.2 |
3.2 ±0.6 |
0.4 ±4.7 |
|
ZBL 85 |
23 ± 13 |
22 ± 11 |
0.4 ± 6.8 |
-1.1 ± 1.7 |
-1.0 ± 0.5 |
7.6 ± 13 |
|
ICRU |
-0.7 ± 6.5 |
-1.1 ± 5.0 |
-1.2 ± 3.7 |
-0.8 ± 1.6 |
-0.2 ± 0.5 |
-1.0 ± 4.1 |
|
SRIM 2003 |
1.7 ± 4.9 |
-0.1 ± 4.7 |
-0.4 ± 3.6 |
-0.2 ± 1.6 |
0.2 ± 0.3 |
-0.1 ± 3.8 |
|
Table B3. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for He ions in 16 elemental solids |
||||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0 - 0.01 |
0.01 - 0.1 |
0.1 - 1.0 |
1 - 10 |
10 - 100 |
0 - 100 |
|
No. of points |
94 |
942 |
1610 |
332 |
11 |
2989 |
|
Z 77 |
6.1 ±25 |
4.8 ±8.4 |
0.5 ±5.6 |
0.1 ±3.3 |
0.5 ±1.0 |
2.0 ±8.1 |
|
ZBL 85 |
19 ±24 |
3.5 ±8.1 |
0.7 ±5.8 |
-0.5 ±3.5 |
0.8 ±2.4 |
2.0 ±8.3 |
|
ICRU |
4.9 ± 24 |
2.6 ± 7.9 |
0.2 ± 5.7 |
0.5 ± 3.4 |
0.9 ± 0.9 |
1.1 ± 7.6 |
|
SRIM 2003 |
10.2 ± 21 |
3.5 ± 7.8 |
0.5 ± 5.4 |
-0.1 ± 3.3 |
0.2 ± 0.9 |
1.7 ± 7.3 |
|
Table B4. Mean normalized difference Δ± σ (in %) for He ions in all elemental gases except F, Cl, Rn |
|||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0 - 0.01 |
0.01 - 0.1 |
0.1 - 1.0 |
1 - 10 |
0 - 10 |
|
No. of points |
5 |
181 |
669 |
205 |
1060 |
|
Z 77 |
-0.5 ±6.0 |
-1.6 ±3.6 |
1.0 ±3.3 |
1.6 ±2.2 |
0.7 ±3.3 |
|
ZBL 85 |
7.2 ±13 |
2.6 ±5.7 |
3.2 ±4.3 |
-0.7 ±1.5 |
2.4 ±4.6 |
|
ICRU |
0.5 ± 6.8 |
-1.4 ± 3.5 |
0.3 ± 3.6 |
0.5 ± 1.2 |
0.1 ± 3.3 |
|
SRIM 2003 |
-5.4 ± 6.1 |
-0.1 ± 3.2 |
0.3 ± 3.2 |
-0.2 ± 1.1 |
0.1 ± 3.0 |
Remarkably, the experimental accuracy for measurements on gases is here, on the average, twice as good as for solids.
C. Statistical Analysis for protons and alphas in Compounds
The following comparisons with the tables from ICRU Report 49 [7] and SRIM 2003 [8] are taken from [14].
|
Table C1. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for He ions in ethylene |
||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0 – 0.03 |
0.03 – 0.3 |
0.3 – 3.0 |
0 – 3.0 |
|
No. of points |
8 |
53 |
66 |
127 |
|
ICRU 49 |
-5.4 ± 5.1 |
-1.0 ± 2.4 |
2.7 ± 1.8 |
0.6 ± 3.3 |
|
SRIM 2003_26, CAB corrected |
-23 ± 8.1 |
-3.8 ± 6.5 |
1.9 ± 1.4 |
-2.1 ± 7.7 |
In Table C1, there are eight different measurements for the same substance, in good agreement with each other. The large |Δ| for SRIM at low energy is evident, indicating that SRIM is too high there.
|
Table C2. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for H or He ions in about 150 compounds (CO and dimethyl sulfite omitted), compared to SRIM (CAB corrected) |
|||||||
|
Ions |
Targets |
E/A1 (MeV) |
0 – 0.03 |
0.03 – 0.3 |
0.3 – 3.0 |
3 – 30 |
0 – 30 |
|
H |
condensed |
No. of pts. |
62 |
441 |
817 |
172 |
1492 |
|
Δ ± σ |
-3.2 ± 15 |
-0.3 ± 7.5 |
1.5 ± 6.3 |
-0.3 ± 3.8 |
0.6 ± 7.1 |
||
|
gaseous |
No. of pts. |
11 |
556 |
334 |
12 |
913 |
|
|
Δ ± σ |
2.7 ± 4.6 |
-0.8 ± 4.2 |
-0.1 ± 3.3 |
-0.8 ± 2.2 |
-0.5 ± 3.9 |
||
|
He |
condensed |
No. of pts. |
61 |
542 |
1268 |
7 |
1878 |
|
Δ ± σ |
-3.3 ± 9.9 |
0.9 ± 6.7 |
-0.8 ± 4.1 |
-1.2 ± 3.3 |
-0.4 ± 5.3 |
||
|
gaseous |
No. of pts. |
73 |
1111 |
1496 |
0 |
2680 |
|
|
Δ ± σ |
-16 ± 11 |
-1.4 ± 6.5 |
1.0 ± 2.8 |
|
-0.4 ± 5.7 |
||
Here, the results for H ions are rather similar to those for elements shown above. For low energy He ions in gases, there is again a large negative value Δ as in Table C1 above.
|
Table C3. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for H and He ions in 23 compounds covered by ICRU 49 |
|||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0 – 0.03 |
0.03 – 0.3 |
0.3 – 3.0 |
3 – 30 |
0 – 30 |
|
No. of points |
116 |
1036 |
1237 |
135 |
2524 |
|
ICRU Rep. 49 |
0.2 ± 8.9 |
1.4 ± 5.9 |
1.3 ± 5.2 |
1.0 ± 4.4 |
1.3 ± 5.7 |
|
SRIM 2003_26, CAB corrected |
-7.8 ± 12 |
-1.0 ± 6.4 |
0.4 ± 5.6 |
-0.6 ± 4.0 |
-0.6 ± 6.6 |
Here, the ICRU table is clearly better than SRIM.
|
Table C4. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for H ions in 20 gaseous hydrocarbon compounds, with respect to two SRIM calculations |
|||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0 – 0.03 |
0.03 – 0.3 |
0.3 – 3.0 |
3 – 30 |
0 – 30 |
|
No. of points |
0 |
371 |
190 |
4 |
565 |
|
SRIM 2003, Bragg |
|
3.0 ± 4.4 |
3.1 ± 2.5 |
-0.1 ± 1.0 |
3.0 ± 3.9 |
|
SRIM 2003, CAB, g |
|
-1.1 ± 4.4 |
-0.7 ± 3.2 |
0.2 ± 1.3 |
-1.0 ± 4.0 |
Table C4 shows the positive effect of the CAB correction (which is very hard to discern generally): the corrections decrease Δ by 4 % and bring SRIM very close to the data.
D. Statistical Analysis for ions from 3Li to 18Ar
The following comparisons with the tables MSTAR [9, 10], SRIM 2003 [8], and ICRU Report 73 [11] have been taken from [12]. Comparisons with additional tables can be found in [11]. Separate results for the various ions (as compared to MSTAR) can be found in [10].
|
Table D1. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in the elemental solids covered by ICRU 73. |
||||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0.025 - 0.1 |
0.1- 1 |
1 - 10 |
10 - 100 |
100-1000 |
0.025-1000 |
|
No. of points |
1399 |
3452 |
1262 |
175 |
11 |
6299 |
|
MSTAR v.3, mode b |
2.5 ± 9.9 |
0.1 ± 7.3 |
0.8 ± 5.5 |
0.1 ± 2.2 |
0.7 ± 1.4 |
0.8 ± 7.6 |
|
SRIM 2003.26 |
1.3 ± 9.7 |
-0.9 ± 7.0 |
-0.3 ± 5.6 |
-1.6 ± 2.9 |
-0.1 ± 1.6 |
-0.3 ± 7.4 |
|
ICRU 73 |
-11.4 ± 20 |
-6.8 ± 12 |
-3.0 ± 6.6 |
-0.8 ± 3.0 |
-0.8 ± 1.9 |
-6.9 ± 13 |
|
Table D2. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in aluminum oxide, kapton polyimide, polycarbonate (makrolon), polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate (mylar), polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, silicon dioxide, toluene, and water (liquid) |
|||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0.025 – 0.1 |
0.1 – 1 |
1- 10 |
10 - 100 |
0.025-100 |
|
No. of points |
133 |
586 |
368 |
13 |
1100 |
|
MSTAR v. 3, mode b |
6.6 ± 10.4 |
1.6 ± 6.3 |
5.2 ± 4.0 |
0.0 ± 1.3 |
3.4 ± 6.6 |
|
SRIM 2003.26 |
-0.8 ± 8.3 |
-0.1 ± 5.2 |
-0.4 ± 5.0 |
-2.3 ± 1.7 |
-0.3 ± 5.6 |
|
ICRU 73 |
-11 ± 12 |
-2.1 ± 7.4 |
-1.0 ± 5.1 |
-0.5 ± 1.4 |
-2.8 ± 8.1 |
|
Table D3. Mean normalized difference Δ ± σ (in %) for ions from 3Li to 18Ar in all gases covered by MSTAR and ICRU 73 for which we have data. |
|||||
|
E/A1 (MeV) |
0.025 – 0.1 |
0.1 – 1 |
1- 10 |
10 - 100 |
0.025-100 |
|
No. of points |
167 |
190 |
551 |
189 |
1097 |
|
MSTAR v. 3, mode b |
-2.5 ± 10.3 |
-2.2 ± 13 |
0.2 ± 3.8 |
0.7 ± 2.4 |
-0.5 ± 7.3 |
|
SRIM2003.26 |
3.0 ± 10.1 |
-7.7 ± 12 |
-0.4 ± 5.2 |
-2.2 ± 3.9 |
-1.4 ± 8.1 |
|
ICRU 73 |
-50 ± 28 |
-2.9 ± 16 |
-2.0 ± 10.5 |
-0.1 ± 3.8 |
-9.1 ± 23 |
Evidently, MSTAR and SRIM describe the data about equally well. For the ICRU table, the agreement at low energy is generally worse.
E. Rejected or omitted data
These data were rejected because of obvious discrepancies with other data for the same Z1 – Z2 – combination.
|
Table E1. Rejected proton and alpha data from [2], with later additions that include also some compounds. June, 2008 |
|||
|
Z1 |
Target name/File no.
|
Reason for rejection (or omission) |
Ref. |
|
1 |
Ag.003 |
low compared to many others |
Wa49 |
|
Ag.011, Au.024, Cu.010 |
low |
No75 |
|
|
Au.053, Pd.003 |
wrongly rejected before June, 2008 |
Vs00 |
|
|
C.018, C.019 |
5 - 10% high compared to others |
Op75 |
|
|
Ce.002, Yb.003 |
much lower than Kn80 (“obviously incorrect” acc. to Kn80) |
Si72 |
|
|
Cu.031 |
very low |
Gt62 |
|
|
D2Oc.001 |
Temporarily rejected (low compared to tables) |
Ad77 |
|
|
H.008, He.006 |
low compared to many others |
Cr42 |
|
|
He.011, He.012 |
Uncertainty about threshold effect |
Gl91, RG01 |
|
|
LiF.003, 004 |
Temporarily rejected awaiting new Bauer data |
Mö04 |
|
|
N.017 |
solid gas |
Bö82a |
|
|
Nb.002 |
low compared to Si84, Bi86 |
Bh73 |
|
|
Si.001 |
very low |
Ar69 |
|
|
Si.014 |
low |
Gm76 |
|
|
Ta.008 |
low compared to Lu79, Si84, etc. |
Si72 |
|
|
Ti.004, Ti.005 |
high compared to Or71 |
Gt62 |
|
|
Ti.006 |
high compared to Or71 |
Ar69 |
|
|
Al2O3.007 |
strange results with very large stated errors |
Rt72 |
|
|
GaSb.001 |
25 % error |
Hl74 |
|
|
LiF.001 |
60% too high according to P. Bauer |
Ed97 |
|
|
SiC.001 |
Data for O and Al ions low w.r.t. Zha03b |
Js04 |
|
|
ZnTe.002 |
Low compared to ZnTe.001; uncertain density required for conversion from linear stopping power |
BL74 |
|
|
2 |
[Cr.06,Cu.18, Mo.08, Ni.22] |
Based on ranges (5 - 100 keV). The stopping values go down to 0.01 keV, but these are not really measured. Rather, they are extrapolated down from 100 keV using the shape of SRIM 95 stopping. Data not rejected, but replaced by reevaluated values from 5 to 100 keV. |
Sp98 |
|
Ag.26 |
low compared to Gt62, Th81 |
No75 |
|
|
Ag.24 |
very high compared to Gt62, Th81 |
Te57 |
|
|
Air.04, CO2.05, He.08 |
Data differ markedly from other similar data |
Hb72 |
|
|
Au.26, C.14 |
high compared to many others |
Pe81 |
|
|
Au.33 |
low compared to Bl80, Th80, Kr82 |
No75 |
|
|
H2Ov.01 |
Apparently replaced by Pl80 |
Pl78 |
|
|
Ne.06 |
Too steep compared to others |
Fu99 |
|
|
Ta2O5.01, SiO2.04 |
Off by large factors |
SB76 |
|
|
ZnTe.01 |
Uncertain density, and discrepancy with ZnTe.02 (PH77) |
BL74 |
|
|
Targets CO and Dimethyl sulfite were omitted from statistical analysis because of very large Bragg corrections in SRIM; the large Bragg correction for SF6 was set to zero. |
|||
|
Table E2. Rejected or omitted heavy ion data from [1], with later additions to the original list. 20 Oct 2010 |
|||
|
Ion |
Target.File-number |
Reason for rejection (or omission) |
Ref. |
|
238U |
Air.1, He.3, Kr.4 |
Differentiated range-energy curve; strange shape; large stated errors |
Bez75 |
|
63Cu |
H2.2, N2.2 |
Two single points from new ITEP setup; large stated errors |
Fer06 |
|
58Ni |
Cu.3 |
Data unusually low |
Ay81b |
|
40Ar |
Au.8 |
low by a factor 2 – 3 compared to Sc82 (and Wr79) |
Nd77 |
|
32S |
Au.2 |
high by a factor 2 – 3 w.r.t. Sd75, Fs76, Am68 (error of Bt66: 25%) |
Bt66 |
|
32S |
Ag.2 |
low by a factor 1.5 – 2 w.r.t. Fs76 (error of Bt66: 25%) |
Bt66 |
|
32S |
Ni.2 |
in analogy, to avoid large discrepancies |
Bt66 |
|
28Si |
Au.2 |
In analogy to other Nd77 data (see Table B of [1]) |
Nd77 |
|
24Mg |
Ag.3,Au.2,Cu.1,Fe.2,Mo.1,Pt.1, Ti.1,W.1 |
omitted (see p. 308 of [1]) |
At90 |
|
24Mg |
Co.1,Hf.1,Nb.1,Pd.1, Re.1,V.1 |
In analogy, although not covered by MSTAR (8 Jul 03) |
At90 |
|
24Mg |
Ni.3 |
in analogy, to avoid large discrepancies, see p. 13/3 |
At90 |
|
24Mg |
Ta.1 |
in analogy, p. 17/5 |
At90 |
|
26Mg |
Ge.1, Si.1 |
omitted (see text by Paul I, p. 308) |
At91 |
|
26Mg |
Ta.2 |
very similar to 24MgTa.1 (At90) |
Ku91 |
|
20Ne |
Al.5, Al.8 |
high energy points too low compared to Po61, Sha73 and Ang00 |
Tp62 |
|
20Ne |
Au.3 |
In analogy to other Nd77 data (see Table B of [10] |
Nd77 |
|
16O |
Ag.14 |
high compared to BG65, Sk86, Am68, Wr72 |
Bt66 |
|
16O |
Au.11 |
high w.r.t. Ku88, BG65, Sk90, Am68 |
Sd74 |
|
16O |
Au.15 |
too steep, in part too high w.r.t. Wr79, Po60, Ab93, Sa92 |
Nd77 |
|
14N |
Au.11 |
too steep, in part too high w.r.t. Wr79, Sa91, Sc82, Po61, Ld85 |
Nd77 |
|
14N |
CH4.1 |
In analogy to some other Tp62 data |
Tp62 |
|
15N |
Ar.6, He.5 |
high compared to And69 data for Ar, Ef75 for N2, Rl60 for O2, and Tp62 for air and Ar targets (p. 169 of [13]) |
Pr93 |
|
14N |
He.1, Kr.1, Ne.2, Xe.1 |
||
|
12C |
Au.9 |
In analogy to other Nd77 data |
Nd77 |
|
12C |
W.1 |
Too high as seen by statistical analysis (Judge) |
Ant91 |
|
11B |
Al.2, Al.3 |
low compared to Rä91,Zh98a |
Tp62 |
|
11B |
CH4.1 |
In analogy to some other Tp62 data |
Tp62 |
|
7Li |
Ag.6 |
too low compared to Se90, Sa84b, Li86 |
Tp62 |
|
7Li |
Cu.5 |
high; apparently replaced by Me80 (which is in good agreement with An80) |
Me79 |
|
7Li |
Air.3, Ar.4, H2.3, He.4 |
Low compared to other comparable data, especially to An78 |
All56 |
|
7Li |
CH4.1 |
In analogy to some other Tp62 data |
Tp62 |
|
7Li |
W.1 |
Too high as seen by statistical analysis (Judge) |
Ant91 |
|
2<Z1<27 |
Si |
Data shown on figures for Li, B, C, N, O, Si, P are all low compared to others. |
Whl02b |
F. Compounds treated in statistical analyses
The list shows the compounds treated up to now (1 Dec. 2005) in our statistical analyses. The list gives names, formulae, short file designations, physical state, the Bragg corrections (in percent) according to SRIM 2003 (for p and α), and an identification number. Compounds with ID < 300 are in the ICRU 49 table. A “g” in the "state" column indicates that the substance is gaseous at normal temperature and pressure (NTP). Many substances that are not gaseous at NTP, have been measured at reduced pressure in gaseous form; this is indicated by a "v" at the end of the file name, and a "g" in the "state" column.
| Compound Name | Formula | File Name | State | Bragg p | Bragg α | ID |
| A-150 Tissue equivalent plastic | A150 | 0 | 0 | 99 | ||
| Acetaldehyde vapor | C2H4O | AcAlv | g | -2.76 | 0.97 | 300 |
| Acetone | C3H6O | Acet | l | -2.43 | 1.39 | 301 |
| Acetone vapor | C3H6O | Acetv | g | -2.43 | 1.39 | 302 |
| Acetylene | C2H2 | C2H2 | g | 2.7 | 6.2 | 101 |
| Air, dry | Air | g | 0 | 0 | 104 | |
| Alcohol, Amyl | C5H11OH | AAlc | l | -2.83 | 1.12 | 769 |
| Alcohol, Butyl | C4H9OH | BAlc | l | -3.08 | 0.84 | 767 |
| Alcohol, ethyl | C2H5OH | EAlc | l | -4.07 | -0.24 | 303 |
| Alcohol, ethyl, vapor | C2H5OH | Ealcv | g | -4.07 | -0.24 | 304 |
| Alcohol, Heptyl | C7H15OH | HpAlc | l | -2.51 | 1.46 | 773 |
| Alcohol, Isopropyl | C>7OH | IPAlc | l | -3.45 | 0.44 | 765 |
| Alcohol, methyl, vapor | CH3OH | Malcv | g | -5.29 | -1.57 | 306 |
| Alcohol, Nonyl | C9H19OH | NAlc | l | -2.32 | 1.67 | 777 |
| Alcohol, propyl | C3H7OH | PAlc | l | -3.45 | 0.44 | 307 |
| Alcohol, propyl, vapor | C3H7OH | Palcv | g | -3.45 | 0.44 | 308 |
| Allene, 1,2-Propadiene | C3H4 | Alle | g | 3.41 | 7.54 | 309 |
| Aluminum oxide | Al2O3 | 0 | 0 | 106 | ||
| Ammonia | NH3 | g | -3.19 | 0.51 | 310 | |
| Anthracene | C14H10 | Anthr | 1.27 | 5.15 | 314 | |
| Barium chloride | BaCl2 | 0 | 0 | 320 | ||
| Barium fluoride | BaF2 | 0 | 0 | 322 | ||
| Benzene | C6H6 | C6H6 | l | 1.58 | 5.56 | 329 |
| Benzene vapor | C6H6 | C6H6v | g | 1.58 | 5.56 | 330 |
| Butadiene | C4H6 | Butad | g | 2.03 | 6.15 | 334 |
| Butane | C4H10 | But | g | -0.91 | 3.27 | 340 |
| Butanone vapor 2- | C4H8O | Butov | g | -2.25 | 1.63 | 716 |
| Butene | C4H8 | Bute | g | 0.41 | 4.56 | 342 |
| Butyne | C4H6 | Buty | g | 0.33 | 4.38 | 344 |
| Butyraldehyde vapor | C4H8O | BtAdv | g | -2.25 | 1.63 | 718 |
| Cadmium Telluride | CdTe | CdTe | 0 | 0 | 346 | |
| Calcium Fluoride | CaF2 | CaF2 | 0 | 0 | 130 | |
| Carbon Dioxide | CO2 | CO2 | g | -6.4 | -3.46 | 134 |
| Carbon Dioxide, solid | CO2 | CO2c | -6.4 | -3.46 | 135 | |
| Carbon disulfide vapor | CS2 | CS2v | g | 0.09 | -6.14 | 348 |
| Carbon Monoxide | CO | COg | g | -18.86 | 5.61 | 350 |
| Carbon Tetrachloride | CCl4 | CCl4 | l | 4.39 | 0.28 | 360 |
| Carbon Tetrachloride | CCl4 | CCl4v | g | 4.39 | 0.28 | 361 |
| Carbon Tetrafluoride | CF4 | CF4 | g | -4.14 | -4.31 | 370 |
| Chloroform | CHCl3 | Clfm | 4.07 | 0.63 | 380 | |
| Chloroform vapor | CHCl3 | Clfmv | g | 4.07 | 0.63 | 381 |
| CR-39, PADC nucl. track detector | C12H18O7 | CR39 | 0 | 0 | 390 | |
| Cycloheptane | C7H14 | CyHp | l | 4.7 | 9.03 | 392 |
| Cyclohexadiene vapor 1,3- | C6H8 | CyHdv | g | 0.37 | 4.39 | 394 |
| Cyclohexane | C6H12 | CycH | l | -1.56 | 2.51 | 400 |
| Cyclohexane vapor | C6H12 | CycHv | g | -1.56 | 2.51 | 401 |
| Cyclohexanone vapor | C6H10O | CyHov | g | -2.53 | 1.32 | 728 |
| Cyclohexene | C6H10 | CyHe | l | -0.66 | 3.38 | 729 |
| Cyclohexene vapor | C6H10 | CyHev | g | -0.66 | 3.38 | 730 |
| Cyclooctane | C8H16 | CycO | l | -1.56 | 2.51 | 731 |
| Cyclooctane vapor | C8H16 | CycOv | g | -1.56 | 2.51 | 732 |
| Cyclopentane | C5H10 | CycP | l | -1.56 | 2.51 | 403 |
| Cyclopentane vapor | C5H10 | CycPv | g | -1.56 | 2.51 | 404 |
| Cyclopentene | C5H8 | CyPe | l | -0.47 | 3.57 | 405 |
| Cyclopentene vapor | C5H8 | CyPev | g | -0.47 | 3.57 | 406 |
| CycloPropane | (CH2)3 | Cycpr | g | -1.56 | 2.51 | 410 |
| Decane | C10H22 | Dec | l | -1.28 | 2.83 | 411 |
| Decane vapor | C10H22 | Decv | g | -1.28 | 2.83 | 412 |
| Decanol | C10H21OH | DAlc | l | -2.26 | 1.75 | 779 |
| Decene | C10H20 | Dece | l | -0.77 | 3.33 | 502 |
| Diamond | Diam | 806 | ||||
| Dichloromethane | CH2CL2 | DClM | 3.56 | 1.2 | 414 | |
| Dichloromethane vapor | CH2CL2 | DClMv | g | 3.56 | 1.2 | 415 |
| Diethyl ether | (C2H5)2O | DEtE | l | -3.76 | 0.14 | 735 |
| Diethyl ether vapor | (C2H5)2O | DEtEv | g | -3.76 | 0.14 | 736 |
| Difluoroethane, Freon 152 | C2H4F2 | Dflea | g | -2.3 | -0.21 | 418 |
| Difluoroethylene | C2H2F2 | Dfley | g | -0.6 | 1.13 | 417 |
| Dimethyl amine | (CH3)2NH | DMAm | g | 12.29 | 16.79 | 748 |
| Dimethyl disulfide vapor | C2H6S2 | DMDSv | g | 3.86 | 1.26 | 750 |
| Dimethyl ether | (CH3)2O | DME | g | -5.2 | -1.41 | 752 |
| Dimethyl sulfide vapor | C2H6S | DMSdv | g | 2.11 | 1.74 | 754 |
| Dimethylsulfite vapor | (CH3O)2SO | DMSfv | g | -16.78 | -16.13 | 420 |
| Dioxane vapor 1,4- | C4H8O2 | Dioxv | g | -12.71 | -9.35 | 740 |
| Dodecane | C12H26 | Dod | l | -1.33 | 2.78 | 756 |
| Erbium oxide | Er2O3 | 0 | 0 | 422 | ||
| Ethane | C2H6 | g | -0.37 | 3.9 | 424 | |
| Ethyl bromide | C2H5Br | CH5Br | l | -2.7 | 0.2 | 426 |
| Ethyl cellulose | C12H22O5 | EthCl | 0 | 0 | 428 | |
| Ethyl iodide | C2H5I | CH5I | l | -2.41 | -3.69 | 430 |
| Ethylamine | C2H5NH2 | EtAm | g | 1.93 | 1.93 | 431 |
| Ethylene, Ethene | C2H4 | Ethyl | g | 2.38 | 6.61 | 155 |
| Ethylene oxide | C2H4O | EthO | g | -6.83 | -6.83 | 432 |
| Ethylene sulfide vapor | C2H4S | EthSv | g | 0.68 | 0.68 | 434 |
| Ethynylbenzene vapor | C8H6 | EthBv | g | 1.61 | 5.52 | 436 |
| Formvar | C5H8O2 | Form | -1.33 | -1.33 | 760 | |
| Freon-114-B2 | C2Br2F4 | C2BrF | l | -4.93 | -4.21 | 438 |
| Freon-116 | C2F6 | g | -4.28 | -4.23 | 441 | |
| Freon-12 | CCl2F2 | CCl2F | g | 1.31 | -1.33 | 444 |
| Freon-13 | CClF3 | g | -2.56 | -0.97 | 448 | |
| Freon-13B1 | CBrF3 | CBrF3 | g | -4.72 | -4.28 | 452 |
| Freon-C-318 | C4F8 | g | -4.52 | -4.1 | 455 | |
| Gallium antimonide | GaSb | 0 | 0 | 458 | ||
| Gallium Arsenide | GaAs | 0 | 0 | 460 | ||
| Gallium Nitride | GaN | 0 | 0 | 462 | ||
| Gallium Phosphide | GaP | 0 | 0 | 465 | ||
| Genetron-21 | CHCl2F | CHClF | g | 2.32 | -0.2 | 468 |
| Glycerol | C3H8O3 | Glyc | l | -6.92 | -3.41 | 469 |
| Graphite | C | Graph | 0.24 | 3.8 | 906 | |
| Havar | Havar | 0 | 0 | 470 | ||
| Heptane | C7H16 | Hept | l | -1.17 | 2.96 | 471 |
| Heptane vapor | C7H16 | Heptv | g | -1.17 | 2.96 | 472 |
| Heptene | C7H14 | Hepe | l | -0.43 | 3.68 | 503 |
| Heptyne vapor | C7H12 | Hptyv | g | -0.53 | 3.53 | 473 |
| Hexane | C6H14 | Hexa | l | -1.11 | 3.03 | 474 |
| Hexane vapor | C6H14 | Hexav | g | -1.11 | 3.03 | 475 |
| Hexanol | C6H13OH | HAlc | l | -2.65 | 1.32 | 771 |
| Hexene | C6H12 | Hexe | l | -0.25 | 3.88 | 478 |
| Hexene vapor | C6H12 | Hexev | g | -0.25 | 3.88 | 479 |
| Hexyne vapor | C6H10 | Hxyv | g | -0.34 | 3.71 | 482 |
| Hydrogen sulfide | H2S | g | 3.7 | -1.85 | 485 | |
| Indium oxide | In2O3 | 0 | 0 | 490 | ||
| Indium phosphide | InP | 0 | 0 | 492 | ||
| Isooctane | C8H18 | Isoo | l | -1.22 | 2.91 | 494 |
| Lithium fluoride | LiF | 0 | 0 | 185 | ||
| Lithium niobate | LiNbO3 | LiNbO | 0 | 0 | 500 | |
| LR-115, Nuclear track detector | C6H8O9N2 | L115 | 0 | 0 | 510 | |
| Methane | CH4 | CH4 | g | 0.48 | 4.89 | 197 |
| Methylamine | CH3NH2 | MAm | g | 23.5 | 23.5 | 512 |
| Mu Metal | MuMet | 0 | 0 | 514 | ||
| Mylar | C10H8O4 | Mylar | -4.3 | -0.83 | 222 | |
| Nitric Oxide | NO | g | 0 | 0 | 520 | |
| Nitrous oxide | N2O | g | -2.86 | -0.12 | 521 | |
| Nonane | C9H20 | Non | l | -1.26 | 2.86 | 522 |
| Nonane vapor | C9H20 | Nonv | g | -1.26 | 2.86 | 523 |
| Octane | C8H18 | Oct | l | -1.22 | 2.91 | 524 |
| Octane vapor | C8H18 | Octv | g | -1.22 | 2.91 | 525 |
| Octanol | C8H17OH | OAlc | l | -2.41 | 1.58 | 775 |
| Octene | C8H16 | Octe | l | -0.58 | 3.54 | 504 |
| Pentadecane | C15H32 | Pend | l | -1.37 | 2.73 | 527 |
| Pentane | C5H12 | Pent | l | -1.03 | 3.13 | 528 |
| Pentane vapor | C5H12 | Pentv | g | -1.03 | 3.13 | 530 |
| Pentanone vapor 3- | C5H10O | Pntov | g | -2.12 | 1.79 | 742 |
| Pentene | C5H10 | Pnte | g | 0.02 | 4.15 | 531 |
| Pentene vapor | C5H10 | Pntev | g | 0.02 | 4.15 | 532 |
| Pentyne vapor | C5H8 | Pntyv | g | -0.08 | 3.97 | 533 |
| Perfluoropropane | C3F8 | g | -4.35 | -4.19 | 535 | |
| Permalloy 4750 | Perma | 0 | 0 | 540 | ||
| Plastic Scintillator NE-111 | NE11 | 0 | 0 | 216 | ||
| Pliolite S-5A | (C12H14)n | Pliol | 0 | 0 | 550 | |
| Pliolite S-5A | C7.429H7.714 | 551 | ||||
| Polycarbonate, Lexan, Makrofol | C16H14O3 | Polyc | -2.24 | 1.43 | 219 | |
| Polyethylene | (C2H4)n | Polye | -1.56 | 2.51 | 221 | |
| Polyethylene naphtalate? | C7H5O2 | PEN | 560 | |||
| Polyimide, Kapton | C22H10O5N2 | Polyi | 0 | 0 | 179 | |
| Polypropylene | (C3H6)n | Polyp | -1.56 | 2.51 | 225 | |
| Polystyrene | (C8H8)n | Polys | 0.35 | 4.28 | 226 | |
| Polysulfone | C27H22O4S | PSU | 0 | 0 | 564 | |
| Polyvinyltoluene, NE102 pl. scint. | (C9H10)n | PolVT | 0 | 0 | 570 | |
| Potassium titanyl arsenate | KTiOAsO4 | KTA | 0 | 0 | 572 | |
| Propane | C3H8 | C3H8 | g | -0.72 | 3.49 | 238 |
| Propylene | C3H6 | Prope | g | 1.07 | 5.25 | 574 |
| Propylene oxide | C3H6O | PrpOv | g | -5.39 | -1.68 | 800 |
| Propylene sulfide | C3H6S | PrpSv | g | 0.92 | 1.09 | 802 |
| Propyne | C3H4 | Propy | g | 1.06 | 5.1 | 576 |
| Scandium oxide | Sc2O3 | 0 | 0 | 580 | ||
| Silicon carbide | SiC | 0 | 0 | 590 | ||
| Silicon dioxide | SiO2 | 0 | 0 | 245 | ||
| Silver gallium diselenide | AgGaSe2 | AgGSe | 0 | 0 | 593 | |
| Silver gallium disulfide | AgGaS2 | AgGaS | 0 | 0 | 594 | |
| Styrene, Ethylene-benzene | C8H8 | Styr | 1.58 | 5.56 | 600 | |
| Sulfur dioxide | SO2 | g | 0 | 0 | 610 | |
| Sulfur hexafluoride | SF6 | SF6 | g | -34.94 | -36.93 | 614 |
| Tantalum pentoxide | Ta2O5 | 0 | 0 | 620 | ||
| Teflon | (C2F4)n | Tefl | -4.52 | -4.1 | 227 | |
| Terphenyl | C18H14 | Terph | 1.35 | 5.25 | 630 | |
| Tetradecane | C14H30 | Tetr | l | -1.36 | 2.74 | 632 |
| Thiophene vapor | C4H4S | Thphv | g | 3.08 | 3.28 | 640 |
| Tissue eq. Gas (methane based) | TEGM | g | 0 | 0 | 263 | |
| Titanium nitr. oxide | TiN1.1O0.27 | TiNO | 0 | 0 | 650 | |
| Titanium oxide | TiO2 | 0 | 0 | 652 | ||
| Toluene | C7H8 | Tol | l | 1.04 | 5.03 | 266 |
| Toluene vapor | C7H8 | Tolv | g | 1.04 | 5.03 | 268 |
| Tridecane | C13H28 | Trid | l | -1.35 | 2.76 | 659 |
| Trimethylamine | (CH3)3N | TMAm | g | 7.45 | 11.79 | 656 |
| Trimethylene sulfide | C3H6S | TMSv | g | 0.92 | 1.09 | 658 |
| Tungsten trioxide | WO3 | 0 | 0 | 660 | ||
| Undecane | C11H24 | Und | l | -1.31 | 2.8 | 662 |
| Undecanol | C11H23OH | UAlc | l | -2.2 | 1.81 | 781 |
| Uranium oxide | UO2 | 0 | 0 | 670 | ||
| Vinyl bromide | C2H3Br | CH3Br | g | -1.29 | 1.41 | 680 |
| Vinyl methyl ether | C3H6O | VMEt | g | -3.23 | 0.56 | 684 |
| Vyns, copolymer | C22H33 O2Cl9 | Vyns | 0 | 0 | 690 | |
| Water Vapor | H2Ov | g | -6 | 2 | 277 | |
| Water, cond. | H2O | -6 | 2 | 276 | ||
| Water, heavy, cond. | D2O | D2O | 286 | |||
| Zinc selenide | ZnSe | 0 | 0 | 700 | ||
| Zinc silicon diphosphide | ZnSiP2 | ZnSiP | 0 | 0 | 704 | |
| Zinc Telluride | ZnTe | 0 | 0 | 710 | ||
REFERENCES
[1] H. Paul and A. Schinner, "An empirical approach to the stopping power of solids and gases for ions from 3Li to 18Ar, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B 179 (2001) 299
[2] H. Paul and A. Schinner, “Judging the reliability of stopping power tables and programs for protons and alpha particles using statistical methods”, Nucl. Instr. Methods B 227 (2005) 461
[3] H.H. Andersen and J.F. Ziegler, The Stopping and Ranges of Ions in Matter, Vol. 3, Pergamon New York, 1977
[4] J.F. Ziegler, Helium: Stopping Power and Ranges in all Elemental Matter, The Stopping and Ranges of Ions in Matter, Vol. 4, Pergamone, New York, 1977
[5] J.F. Janni, Atomic Data Nucl. Data Tables 27 (1982) 147
[6] J.F. Ziegler, J.P. Biersack, U. Littmark, The Stopping and Ranges of Ions in Matter, Vol. 1, Pergamon, New York, 1985
[7] ICRU Report 49, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, USA, 1993
[8] SRIM 2003, obtained from http://www.srim.org. The more recent program SRIM 2006 yields the same stopping powers
[9] A. Schinner and H. Paul, Program MSTAR v. 3 (2003), see this internet site
[10] H. Paul and A. Schinner, “Empirical stopping power tables for ions from 3Li to 18Ar and from 0.001 to 1000 MeVnucleon in solids and gases”, Atomic Data Nucl. Data Tables 85 (2003) 377
[11] ICRU Report 73, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, J. ICRU 5 (1) (2005)
[12] H. Paul, "A comparison of recent stopping power tables for light and medium-heavy ions with experimental data, and applications to radiotherapy dosimetry", Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 247 (2006) 166
[13] H. Paul and A. Schinner, "An empirical approach to the stopping power of solids and gases for ions from 3Li to 18Ar, Part II, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B 195 (2002) 166
[14] H. Paul and A. Schinner, "Statistical analysis of stopping data for protons and alphas in compounds", Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 249 (2006) 1