Nuclear Data Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
P.O.Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Memo CP-D/623
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Reference:

15 March 2010
Distribution
N. Otsuka. E. Dupont
EXFOR Outliers (Parts 4 and 5)
WP2008-03

In 2008, the WPEC sg30 has sent three lists of “EXFOR outliers” (Part. 1, 2 and 3).
Totally 134 subentries were checked with the original articles at NDS, and mistakes(by compilers or authors) were detected in 64 subentries. The result was reported in
WP2008-03 and almost all mistakes have been corrected by originating centres.
As presented in the 2008 NRDC meeting, detection of “too low” outliers was difficult.
In order to improve this point, a logarithmic transformation was introduced in thedetection algorithm, and consequently two new lists (Part 4 and 5) were sent to NDS
in July and August, 2009. Totally 49 subentries were checked with the originalarticles at NDS.
Total
Not in error
Error (corrected)
Error (to be corrected)
Not resolved yet
Total

Part 4
19
3
21
6
49

Part 5
9
0
11
0
20

10
3
10
6
29

Please find proposed corrections in “Report to WPEC SG30” appended to this memo.
A short summary is also shown in the NRDC webpage:
http://www-nds.iaea.org/nrdc/error/exfor_err3.html.
Our special thanks go to Prof. M. Shibata (Nagoya University, Japan), who provided
us the correct data values of 22662.014.
Additions of English translation information are also asked for several entries:
Entry
40374
40374
A0271
A0292
A0339
F0207

Russian reference
J,ZET,34,574,1958
J.AE,8,549,1960
J,YF,39,264,1984
J,IZV,50,2043,1986
J,AE,63,30,1987
J,YF,1,55,1965

English translation
J,JET,34,397,1958
J,SJA,8,462,1960
J,SNP,39,164,1984
J,BAS,50,169,1986
J,SJA,63,528,1987
J,SNP,1,37,1965

Distribution:
blokhin@ippe.ru
chiba@earth.sgu.ac.jp
claes.nordborg@oecd.org
emmeric.dupont@oecd.org
ganesan@barc.gov.in
gezg@ciae.ac.cn
hongwei@ciae.ac.cn
jhchang@kaeri.re.kr
j.roberts@iaea.org
kaltchenko@kinr.kiev.ua
katakura.junichi@jaea.go.jp
kato@nucl.sci.hokudai.ac.jp
kiralyb@atomki.hu
l.vrapcenjak@iaea.org
manuel.bossant@oecd.org
manokhin@ippe.ru
mmarina@ippe.ru
mwherman@bnl.gov
nicolas.soppera@oecd.org
nklimova@kinr.kiev.ua
cc:i45329a@nucc.cc.nagoya-u.ac.jp
koning@nrg.eu

n.otsuka@iaea.org
nrdc@jcprg.org
oblozinsky@bnl.gov
ogritzay@kinr.kiev.ua
otto.schwerer@aon.at
pronyaev@ippe.ru
r.forrest@iaea.org
samaev@obninsk.ru
s.babykina@polyn.kiae.su
scyang@kaeri.re.krs.dunaeva@iaea.org
stakacs@atomki.hu
stanislav.hlavac@savba.sk
taova@expd.vniief.ru
tarkanyi@atomki.hu
varlamov@depni.sinp.msu.ru
vlasov@kinr.kiev.ua
vmclane@optonline.net
v.zerkin@iaea.org
yolee@kaeri.re.

Report to WPEC SG30
Analysis of Emmeric Dupont’s “Outliers in EXFOR data base” (Draft Ver. 2010-03-12 by Naohiko)
Source:Table: Table of data is given in the reference.
Curve: Plot of data is given in the reference.
SCSRS: Data translated from the SCISRS library.
NDD: Data translated from the NEUDADA library.
Author: Data received from authors.
Trans: EXFOR transmission number if corrected

Part 4 (received at NDS on 31 July 2009)
Subentry

Reference

Reaction

Comments (ED)

SourceError?

A0271.005.P

J,YF,39,264,1984(J,SNP,39,164,1984)

28-NI58(P,N+P)28-NI57,,SIG~4 times too low.

Table

No

24-CR-52(P,N)25MN-52-M,,SIG~5 times too low.
This could be gs
production (notmetastable). This
subentry should becross-checked with
A0292.002 (25-MN52-G production),
which is ~5 times
too large.

A0292.003

J,IZV,50,2043,1986(J,BAS,50,169,1986)

Trans

Comments (NO)SF9: Add DERIV
Not activation cross section, but crosssection from decomposition ofneutron spectrum by the statisticalmodel. Enriched target (95.9%) used.
SF1:
25-MN-52-G →25-MN-52-M. (002)25-MN-52-M →25-MN-52-G (003)

Table

Yes

Misprint of Table 1. If we swap σ gand σ m in Table 1, their isomeric ratio
σ g /(σ g +σ m ) plotted in Fig.2 isconsistent with Table.1. σ g +σ m (004)
is consistent with other works.

A0321.004

A0321.005.1

A0321.005.2

A0333.004

J,ARI,34,631,1983

J,ARI,34,631,1983

J,ARI,34,631,1983

J,ARI,36,657,1985

30-ZN-66(P,N)31GA-66,,SIG

There is a typo in thexs value at 15 MeV.
The threshold iswrong.

Table

Yes

45 mb → 435 mb @ 15 MeV(See Table 2)

30-ZN-67(P,N)31GA-67,,SIG

The threshold iswrong.

Table

No

-

F. Szelecsényi et al., J, ARI, 49, 1005,
1998 (EXFOR C0506) mentions:“Their excitation function not onlyshows one of the lowest maximum
cross section value in comparison
with the results of other works, but
the whole curve seems to be shifted tohigher energy region by about 3 MeV.

30-ZN-67(P,2N)31GA-66,,SIG

The threshold might
be wrong, althoughconsistent withanother data set(D4093.005).

Table

No

-

(See above.)

29-CU-65(P,N)30ZN-65,,SIG~3 times too low.

Table

Yes

SF1:
29-CU-65 →29-CU-0 (003-004)
Misprint by authors.
Authors forget correction by isotopic
abundance of 65Cu (30.83%). In Fig.1,
they compared their data with
the natural copper data by A. Grütter
et al. (EXFOR A0178.002, 004).

12.7 → 127 mb (@37.05 MeV)
10.9 → 109 mb (@56.04 MeV)
, so that these two data points agreewith Fig.5.

A0339.003.4

J,AE,63,30,1987(J,SJA,63,528,1987)

26-FE-0(P,X)25MN-54,,SIG

The xs values at 37
MeV and 56MeV
are both a factor 10
too low.

AuthorYes

A0339.003.5

J,AE,63,30,1987(J,SJA,63,528,1987)

26-FE-0(P,X)27CO-56,IND,SIG

The threshold iswrong although theshape is realistic.

AuthorNo?

A0600.002

J,CNP,15,337,1993

Energy resolution

EN-ERR=224.9
MeV
at EN = 15.929 MeV

Table

Yes

A0600.002.6

J,CNP,15,337,1993

26-FE-0(P,X)27CO-56,IND,SIG

The threshold istotally wrong.

Table

Yes

B0073.013

J,PR,162,1055,1967

26-FE-0(P,X)25MN-54,,SIG~2 times too low.

Curve

No

-

B0073.016

J,PR,162,1055,1967

26-FE-0(P,X)27CO-56,,SIG

The threshold iswrong although theshape is realistic.

Curve

No

-

Note that values of 003.4 at low
energy are inconsistent with Fig.5.Butother data (EXFOR A0146.015 andT0276.006) are also wrongly plottedin Fig.5. Misprint by authors?
003.5 values are inconsistent with
Fig.4.But other data (EXFOR
A0146.010 and T0276.002) are also
wrongly plotted in Fig.4 Misprint byauthors?
EN-ERR:224.9 MeV →0.101 MeVDATA (pt.1): 12.4 mb → 224.9 mb
DATA-ERR (pt.1): Add 12.4 mb
SF4:27-CO-55 →27-CO-56 (002.5)
27-CO-56 →27-CO-55 (002.6)
Misprint by authors.
They are correctly in indicated in
Figs.1 and 3.
Not only 013, but several subentries
gives systematically low crosssections.
(See above.)

J,PR,131,1697,196323-V-51(A,2A)21SC-47,,SIG

C0739.005

T,QIANG,1990

29-CU-63(P,N)30ZN-63,,SIG

D0054.002

T,SCHOLTEN,1993(J,RCA,65,81,1994)

13-AL-27(P,X)4BE-7,,SIG

D0093.002

J,ENM,6,411,1981

D4036.002

F0207.007

C0265.007

M0473.004~1000 times too low.
The xs unit should
be milli-barn (notmicro-barn)

52-TE-123(P,N)53I-123,,SIG~1000 times too low.
The xs unit should
be milli-barn (notmicro-barn)~1000 times toolarge. The xs unit
should be microbarn (not milli-barn).
~3 times too low.

J,RCA,65,81,1994

13-AL-27(P,X)4BE-7,,SIG

J,YF,1,55,1965(J,SNP,1,37,1965)

J,PR/C,30,1855,1984

Table

Yes

Table

Yes?

Author

Yes

Table

No

idem D0054.002

Table

Yes

4-BE-9(HE3,N)6-C11,,SIG~20 times too low.

Curve

No

29-CU-63(E,N)29CU-62,,SIG+ 29CU-63(G,N)29-CU62,,SIG~10 times too low at
25 MeV. The shapeis wrong. The
projectile could beelectron (notphoton).

Author

MICRO-B→ MB (007-009)
EN → EN-CM (010-013)
012: First three points should be
coded under DATA-MAX.

Yes

MICRO-B → MB?
(C0739.002, 005, 008, C0738.002)
Misprint by authors?
MB → MICRO-B (002-005)
Their final values (Table 2 of
J,RCA,65,81,1994) must be used.
-

Enriched (87.45%) sample used.
Delete.
Duplication of EXFOR D0054.002.
No mistake in digitization.
Activation cross section.
No such underestimation in
their 12C(3He,α)11C data (EXFOR
F0207.005).
Russian Data Centre (CAJaD) tried tocontact with the author (O. D. Brill’).
But the author died 30 years ago.
SF8: Add BRA in the 2nd term
EN→EN-MAX?.
(γ,n) cross section is Bremsstrahlung
spectrum averaged (See Eq.4 of thearticle).

O0350.030

J,JGR,81,5689,1976

22-TI-0(P,X)23-V48,CUM,SIG

The shape is notcorrect.

SF5: Delete CUM (No precursor)
Monitor cross section natMg(p,x)22Na
used by the authors (EXFOR
O0972.005) is not so bad. F.
Szelecsényi et al., J, NIM/B,174,47,
2001 (EXFOR D4083.002) mentions
that the data are obviously erroneous
probably due to the unreliable beam
current determination.

Table

No

SourceError?

Author

?

Raw data from authors.

No

Agree with Fig.2 (a) (except for the last 6
points which are not shown.). The ratio
agrees with JENDL-3.3 and ENDFB/VII.0.

Yes?

Delete 0.23 b (@0.175 keV) ?
Value at 0.175 keV (0.23 b) is equal tovalue at 175 keV (0.23 b). No such data
point at 0.175 keV in Fig.13.
The following data points are not in Fig.13:
488 mb (@ 87 keV) → 388 mb ?
(Corresponding data point exists in Fig.13.)
478 b (@ 89 keV) → 378 mb ?
(Close to the theoretical fit in Fig.13)
350 b (@ 983 keV) → 98.3 keV ?
(Close to the theoretical fit in Fig.13)

Part 5 (Received at NDS on 31 August 2009)
Subentry
10074.043

10422.006

11329.032

Reference

Reaction

J,NP/A,163,592,1971

23-V0(N,TOT),,SIG,,RA
W

C,76ANL,,47,1976(92-U238(N,F),,SIG)/(92-U233(N,F),,SIG)

J,PR,122,182,1961

49-IN-0(N,G),,SIG

ED Comments
likely to be the same
issue as in
10074.052
The MONITOR
field is suspicious.
Moreover, themonitor might be
235U (not 233U).

The first point (at175 eV) is probably
wrong. Its value
corresponds to oneof the last points (at175 keV).

Author

SCSRS

Trans

NRDC Comments

Reliable isotopic abundance a(113In)=4.5%
is used. Their 115In(n,γ)116mIn cross sectionin EXFOR 11447.075 (144.6 mb) is not sobad. No discussion about this data in otherworks (EXFOR 11748, 20643, 31470).
Waiting a copy from library
Ti, Ni and Pb targets were irradiated in thesame condition with 2mg/cm2 Al foils forthe flux monitor. No such deviation is seenin their Ti and Ni data (EXFOR
11583.003-005). All other data in EXFOR
are derived with 279.2 keV γ-ray (81.5%)
from 203Hg. Yuan Junqian et al.,
J,NTC,16,518,1993 (EXFOR 31637.003)
mentions that use of this γ line is more
simple and accurate than β-ray
measurement used in 11583.020.

11447.073

J,PR,72,888,1947

49-IN-113(N,G)49IN-114M,,SIG,,MXW~10 times too large

11504.006

R,UCRL-6028-T,1960

39-Y-89(N,A)37RB-86,,SIG~3 times too low

11583.020

J,NP/A,98,451,1967

82-PB-206(N,A)80HG-203,,SIG~10 times too large

R,GA-3069,196223-V-51(N,G)23-V52,,RI~10 times too low
compared to other“RI” data. However,the value isconsistent with
“RI,RNV” data.

Waiting a copy from library

J,NP,15,326,1960

27-CO-59(N,2N)27CO-58-M,,SIG~100 times too low

Table

Yes?

4 +/- 2 mb → 150 +/- 5 mb ?
As mentioned in COMMENT, 150 +/- 5
mb is given in text (4 +/- 2 mb in Table 1 isadopted in EXFOR). No plot in the article.

J,NP,38,561,1962(92-U234(N,F),,SIG)/(92-U235(N,F),,SIG)

Uncertainties lie
between 100 % and40000 %. This is thethreshold region
however.

Table

Yes

DATA-ERR:
NO-DIM → PER-CENT

11655.002

11740.004

12325.003

SCSRS

No

Table

No

12343.002

J,PR,142,778,1966

12602.003

R,IN-1317,53,1970

12977.003

14128.002

S,ASTM-STP956,743,1987

J,NSTS,2,614,2002(92-U233(N,F),,SIG)/(92-U235(N,F),,SIG)
30-ZN-68(N,G)30ZN-69-M,,SIG,,MXW

The last point (at7.75 MeV) is ~2
times too low~1000 times too low

SCSRS

?

INC-SOURCE: Add EXPLO.
Only averaged data are given in the article.
Waiting a copy from library

21-SC-45(N,2N)21SC-44,,SIG~2 times too low.
However, thesevalues are consistent
with gs production.

Table

Yes?

SF4: 21-SC-44 → 21-SC-44-G ?
1157.0 keV (I γ =99.9%) is coded (notgiven in the article.) This intensity is forthe ground state production. For the isomer(58.6 h), the intensity of the 1157.0 keV
gamma line is very low.

69-TM-169(N,G)69TM-170,,SIG

The data are shiftedby a factor 1000 inenergy. The energy
unit should be eV(not keV).

Curve

Yes

EN: KEV → EV

20889.010

J,NP/A,93,218,1967

14-SI-29(N,P)13AL-29,,SIG~5 times too low

Table

No

20939.005

R,EANDC-50,98,1967

94-PU239(N,TOT),,SIG~100 times too low.
Are these values xs?

NDD?

21668.003

J,ZN/A,15,200,1960

11-NA-23(N,P)10NE-23,,SIG~5 times too low

Table

No

The authors know the large deviation.
Absolute measurement by β-ray
spectrometry. Absolute values of other22889 data sets are not so bad. See Table 2of J. C. Robertson et al., J,JNE,27,531,
1973 (EXFOR 20799) for systematiccomparison (without any specific comment
about EXFOR 20889.010).
Peak cross sections? But no suchresonances in Table 1.
The authors know the deviation of theirvalue (9 mb @ 14.1 MeV) from33.9 mb @14.5 MeV by E. B. Paul et al,
J,CJP,31,267,1953 (EXFOR 11274.006).

21918.002

22662.014

J,JP/G,9,1549,1983

J,ANE,28,1175,2001

49-IN113(N,2N)49-IN112,,SIG

58-CE140(N,2N)58-CE139-M,,SIG~5 times too low.
However, the value
is consistent with gs
production.

~100 times too low

Table

Table

Yes

Yes

SF4:
49-IN-112 → 49-IN-112-G (002)49-IN-114 → 49-IN-114-G (005), then 003/002 ~ 010 and 006/005~011 asshould be.
Data should be corrected.
140
Ce(n,2n)139mCe(T 1/2 =56.54 s)
Misprint in Table 4 of J,ANE,28,1175,
En
(MeV)
14.87
14.58
14.28
13.88
13.65
13.40

σ
(mb)
983
966
958
948
899
893

δe
(%)
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0

δr
(%)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

δt
(%)
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3

2001. The correct data are provided by
Prof. M. Shibata (Nagoya Univ.) on 201003-09. The correct data set is also shown in
T,SAKANE,200203.

22743.002

C,2004SANTA,1,769,2004

13-AL27(N,TOT),,SIG,,,
DERIV~10 times too low

Table

Yes

22992.002

J,RCA,95,313,2007

63-EU-153(N,P)62SM-153,,SIG~10 times too low

Table

Yes

SF3: TOT → X, SF4: 2-HE-4 (002)
SF4: 1-H-1 → 2-HE-4 (003)
Confirmed by Prof. I. Murata (Osaka
Univ.) on 2010-03-09.
Delete.
The value was cross section averaged for
D-Be neutron spectrum measured inanother work (M. Al-Abyad et al.,J,ARI,64,717,2006, EXFOR 22857.007).

30008.034

J,NP,30,49,1962

39-Y-89(N,A)37RB-86,,SIG~10 times too large

Table

No

30322.012.2

J,JRC,14,201,1973

49-IN115(N,2N)49-IN114-M1,,SIG~100 times too low

Table

No

40374.006

J,ZET,34,574,1958(J,JET,34,397,1958)
J,AE,8,549,1960(J,SJA,8,462,1960)

24-CR-0(N,G),,SIG~10 times too large

Table

No

40421.014

J,JNE/A,11,46,1959

38-SR-86(N,G)38SR-87,,SIG

40421.015

J,JNE/A,11,46,1959

41-NB-93(N,G)41NB-94,,SIG

40816.003

C,65ANTWERP,,576(202),1965

71-LU-0(N,G),,SIG

41104.005

J,IZV,54,1006,1990

63-EU-151(N,G)63EU-152,,SIG

41359.002

C,96MITO,2,338,1996

96-CM245(N,F),,SIG,,MXW

41359.004

C,96MITO,2,338,1996

96-CM247(N,F),,SIG,,MX
W

Both β and γ activities were measured. A
similar large value is also reported by E. B.
Paul et al, J,CJP,31,267,1953 (EXFOR
11274.062). About half of EXFOR works
use 1077 keV γ-ray (8%) for identificationof 86Rb.
The 2.5 sec state (“114m2In” in the article) is
not in the current ENSDF database.

Table

No

Data used for normalization 127I neutron
capture cross section 0.82 b @ 25 keV isreliable.

SCSRS

No

(See above.)~10 times too low

SCSRS

Yes

~2000 times too low

Table

(Yes)

4148

Table

(Yes)

4148

Corrected by CJD (September 2009)<E n >: 0.0253 eV → 0.5 MeV.

Table

(Yes)

4148

Corrected by CJD (September 2009)<E n >: 0.0253 eV → 0.5 MeV.

~5 times too large(confusion with
sub .015?)~2 times too low(confusion with sub.
014?)

~1000 times too low.
It is likely the MXW
average energy(25 meV) is notcorrect.
~50 times too low. It
is likely the MXW
average energy(25 meV) is notcorrect.

DATA should be multiplied by 10, so that the data set agrees with Fig.2.
Corrected by CJD (November 2009)
SF4: 63-EU-152 → 63-EU-152-M2(96 min).