Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Where to Find ICEC? - Screening 2442 Systems for Interparticle Coulombic Electron Capture

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A screen of 2,442 atom–atom and atom–molecule combinations ranks halogen–halide and proton–diatomic systems as the most promising candidates for interparticle Coulombic electron capture, a process in which a captured electron's excess energ

desk verdict A genuinely useful first-pass ICEC screen over 2,442 systems, but the fixed R = 7 Å ranking needs a sensitivity check before the candidate list is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26116 v1 pith:O2EJYKKY submitted 2026-07-28 physics.chem-ph quant-ph

Fabian L. Hofmann , Elena M. Jahr , Elke Fasshauer This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phquant-ph
keywords ICECinterparticleCoulombicelectroncaptureattachmentphotorecombinationphotoionizationcrosssectionasymptoticapproximationatmosphericchemistryFranck-Condonfactors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that interparticle Coulombic electron capture (ICEC) — where a free electron attaches to one atom and the excess energy ejects an electron from a neighbor — is not confined to the few model systems studied so far. Using an efficient asymptotic approximation, the authors screen 2,442 atom–atom and atom–molecule combinations at a fixed separation of 7 Å, folding in molecular vibration through Franck–Condon factors. They find that halogen–halide pairs, lithium halides, and proton- or O⁺-diatomic systems (N₂, O₂, CO, NO, H₂) have large ICEC cross sections and ICEC-to-photorecombination ratios, often exceeding 10³. If these predictions hold, ICEC could compete with photorecombination and charge transfer in atmospheric and astrochemical environments, giving experiments a concrete target list.

What carries the argument

The asymptotic first-order perturbation expression for ICEC (Eq. 2, extended to Eq. 5 for molecules) is the workhorse: it writes the ICEC cross section as a product of the acceptor's photorecombination cross section and the donor's photoionization cross section, divided by ω⁴ R⁶, so that each system can be evaluated from literature data alone. The donor charge enters through the transferred energy ω = ε + IP(A⁻) + Z_D/R, and for diatomics a Franck–Condon sum over vibrational final states replaces the bare electronic cross section. Detailed balance converts photoionization into photorecombination data. This machinery reduces a two-center scattering problem to tabulated single-center data, ena

What would settle it

A merged-beam experiment on e⁻ + I + I⁻ (or a comparable top-ranked pair) measuring the ICEC cross section and emitted-electron spectrum near threshold would directly test the predicted ~10⁴ ICEC-to-photorecombination ratio and the R⁻⁶ distance dependence. Alternatively, a fully ab initio scattering calculation for one candidate, such as H⁺ + O₂, would show whether the asymptotic approximation's omission of overlap terms changes the ordering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ICEC cross sections can be predicted for a wide range of systems from isolated-unit data, and that the resulting ranking identifies specific promising candidates. The cross section is factored as σ ≈ (3c⁴/4π) σ_PR(A) σ_PI(D) / (ω⁴ R⁶), with the transferred energy ω corrected for the charge of the donor and, for molecules, multiplied by Franck–Condon factors. Applying this formula to 2,442 systems at R = 7 Å, the authors find that halogen–halide systems such as II⁻, IBr⁻, ICl⁻, and IF⁻ show averaged ICEC-to-photorecombination ratios near 10⁴ and cross sections of 0.1–1 Mb, while Li⁺-halide systems dominate through large donor photoionization cross sections. For molec

Load-bearing premise

The ranking rests on the asymptotic first-order perturbation formula at a fixed 7 Å separation with interparticle motion neglected; if orbital-overlap terms or actual collision distances change the relative cross sections, the candidate list could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Halogen–halide pairs, with ICEC/PR ratios near 10⁴ and cross sections of 0.1–1 Mb, are the most accessible targets for first experimental verification.
  • H⁺ and O⁺ with N₂, O₂, CO, and NO show ICEC cross sections 10–76 times photorecombination, so ICEC should be included in models of ionospheric and astrochemical electron-attachment kinetics.
  • Lithium halides offer chemically stable, water-soluble systems in which ICEC strongly dominates photorecombination.
  • The database of cross sections and electron spectra provides a systematic basis for selecting systems for future theoretical and experimental studies.
  • ICEC is shown to be a general phenomenon across a broad range of charge states and elements, not limited to noble-gas dimers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims, if overlap terms at finite distances raise all cross sections, the ranking is conservative; if they shift the balance between systems, the ordering of the tables could change.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, including interparticle nuclear motion and temperature for the top candidates would show how the fixed 7 Å ranking maps to realistic gas-phase collisions.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, applying the same screening to molecular acceptors or small clusters could reveal even stronger environment-assisted capture.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, a merged-beam experiment measuring the emitted electron spectrum for a top-ranked pair would test the predicted R⁻⁶ scaling directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a computational screen of 2442 atom–atom and atom–molecule systems for Interparticle Coulombic Electron Capture (ICEC) using the asymptotic first-order perturbation expression, Eq. (2) for atoms and Eq. (5) for molecules, with literature photoionization/photodetachment cross sections, NIST ionization potentials, and Franck–Condon factors. The authors rank systems by the average ICEC-to-photorecombination ratio over the first 10 eV above threshold, retaining only systems with average ICEC cross sections above 10^-2 Mb. They identify halogen–halides and lithium halides among atom–atom systems, and H+/O+ with N2, O2, CO, NO, and H2 among atom–molecule systems, as promising candidates. The implementation is benchmarked against the Ne+Xe system from Ref. 12.

Significance. If the ranking is robust, the paper provides a useful guide for future ICEC experiments and for evaluating ICEC in atmospheric and astrochemical models. The methodology is transparent: the asymptotic approximation is parameter-free, the implementation is benchmarked, and the data and code are openly available. The screen generates falsifiable predictions about which systems should show measurable ICEC near threshold at R=7 Å. However, the ranking is computed at a single fixed internuclear distance and the underlying cross-section data have uncontrolled uncertainties, so the specific ordering and even the top classes need sensitivity checks before the predictions are fully reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (3)] The screening is performed at a single distance R=7 Å, but the transferred energy is ω=ε+IP_A−+Z_D/R. All top atom–atom classes use anionic donors (Z_D=−1), so at R=7 Å the shift is −2.06 eV relative to R=∞; at R=5 Å it is −2.88 eV and at R=10 Å −1.44 eV. Since σ_ICEC ∝ ω^-4 σ_PI_D(ω) and the ICEC/PR ratio also depends on ω, the ordering in Table II and even the 10^-2 Mb filter can change with R. No sensitivity analysis over R is presented. This is load-bearing for the headline candidate list; the authors should show stability of the top-100 list (or at least the top classes) for a range of R, and ideally estimate the spread from a collisional distribution of distances.
  2. [Sec. III, Table I] The input PI cross sections are a heterogeneous mix of experimental and theoretical values, some digitized from figures and linearly interpolated/extrapolated, with Cl− and Br− scaled to experiment. The top-ranked systems are separated by extremely small margins (e.g., ranks 1–4 in Table II differ by <1% in σ/σ_PR), which is within the uncertainty of any of these data sources. No error propagation or sensitivity test with respect to the input PI data is presented. The authors should demonstrate that the qualitative classes (halogen–halides, lithium halides, H+/O+ + diatomics) are robust to, e.g., replacing theoretical PI cross sections by alternative datasets or varying the low-energy extrapolation.
  3. [Secs. II, IV] The asymptotic approximation is stated to be a lower bound at finite R because orbital-overlap terms are neglected (Refs. 16,17). This property applies to the absolute cross section of a fixed system, but it does not guarantee that the ranking is a lower bound or that the relative order among systems is correct. In particular, for charged donors at R=7 Å the neglected overlap and higher-order terms could differ strongly between two-anion systems (halogen–halides) and neutral-donor systems. The paper should discuss whether the ranking is expected to be preserved when overlap corrections are included, or should explicitly flag this as a limitation in the interpretation of Tables II–III.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A 1] "Exponential decrease" should be "power-law (ω^-4) decrease".
  2. [Sec. V] The statement that this work is "the first to account for these interactions throughout the ICEC process" may overstate novelty, given Eq. (3) and the cited Ref. 12; please clarify the precise difference from Ref. 12.
  3. [Sec. III] For systems with ε_t=0, the 10 eV averaging window includes the region where PI data are sparse; state how the linear extrapolation to threshold affects the averaged quantities.
  4. [General] Typos: "which consequently gets ionized" should be "consequently"; "36rd" in Sec. IV B 2 should be "36th"; Fig. 5 caption refers to "PR cross section of I–" while the text says "PR cross section of I".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the ICEC screening uses an externally benchmarked asymptotic formula with literature photoionization data and no fitted target parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a ranking of candidate systems for ICEC, obtained by evaluating Eq. (2) for atom–atom systems and Eq. (5) for atom–molecule systems. The inputs are independent literature data: photoionization/photodetachment cross sections, ionization potentials from NIST, and Franck–Condon factors from external sources. No parameter is fitted to ICEC data, and no quantity is defined in terms of the final ranking. The asymptotic ICEC formula originates in Ref. 12 (Gokhberg and Cederbaum), and the authors explicitly benchmark their implementation against the Ne+Xe calculation of that paper, reproducing the literature result. The Franck–Condon extension in Eq. (5) is taken from the authors' own Ref. 13, but it is a parameter-free first-order perturbation derivation with stated assumptions (Born–Oppenheimer, Condon approximation, orientation averaging), not an ansatz that presupposes the present screening outcome. The use of a self-citation here is therefore legitimate evidence rather than circular reasoning. The fixed distance R = 7 Å and the neglect of interparticle nuclear dynamics are approximation choices that affect the quantitative ranking, but they are not circular: the ranking is still computed from an independent formula and external inputs, and the paper explicitly notes that finite-distance cross sections are lower bounds due to omitted overlap terms. Similarly, the Z_D/R energy shift in Eq. (3) is a physically motivated correction from energy conservation, not a fit to the output. No pattern of self-definition, fitted-input-called-prediction, imported uniqueness, or renaming applies. The paper is self-contained relative to external benchmarks, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on the asymptotic perturbation model, literature photoionization data, vibrational data, and hand-chosen ranking parameters. The main free parameters are the fixed distance R=7 Angstrom, the unreported scaling of Cl-/Br- data, and the ranking filters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Interparticle distance R = 7 Angstrom (chosen)
    All cross sections computed at fixed center-of-mass distance; sigma scales as R^-6, so absolute values and possibly rankings depend on this choice. No averaging over interparticle dynamics.
  • Cl-/Br- photodetachment scaling factor = not stated
    Robinson-Geltman theory scaled to match Mandl experiment (Table I, Refs 28-29); this scale enters donor PI cross sections and thus ICEC cross sections for halogen-halide systems.
  • Ranking criteria (10 eV window, 10^-2 Mb cutoff) = 10 eV, 10^-2 Mb
    Hand-chosen thresholds define which systems are listed as 'promising'; sensitivity not analyzed.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Asymptotic approximation: A and D are well separated; first-order perturbation theory with interaction of isolated units
    Eqs. 2 and 5; paper states cross sections are lower bounds because orbital-overlap terms are neglected (Sec I, paragraph 5).
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer and Condon approximations, orientation averaging for molecules
    Sec II, Franck-Condon model; neglects rotational DOF and dependence of transition dipole on nuclear coordinates.
  • domain assumption Neglect of interparticle nuclear dynamics; fixed R=7 Angstrom
    Sec I states this is done to permit extensive survey; interparticle potentials not computed.
  • ad hoc to paper Literature PI/PR cross sections and NIST IPs are accurate and applicable at transferred energies; sparse low-energy data can be linearly extrapolated
    Sec III; PI data from mixed experimental/theoretical sources, some digitized from figures; assumes linear decrease at low photon energies.
  • domain assumption For diatomics, bound-bound Franck-Condon sum > 0.98, so dissociation can be neglected; for LiH, unresolved Eq. 2 used instead
    Sec III; this affects atom-molecule results, especially LiH-containing systems included in Table III.
  • standard math Detailed balance relation connects PR and PI cross sections
    Eq. 8; assumes no electronic channel openings in acceptor within nonrelativistic picture.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Where to Find ICEC? - Screening 2442 Systems for Interparticle Coulombic Electron Capture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O2EJYKKY

@misc{pith2026260726116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Where to Find ICEC? - Screening 2442 Systems for Interparticle Coulombic Electron Capture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O2EJYKKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26116}
}
abstract

Interparticle Coulombic Electron Capture (ICEC) provides an environment-assisted pathway for electron attachment that can compete with photorecombination. Here, we present the first comprehensive survey of ICEC in atom-atom and atom-molecule systems, screening 2442 combinations in search of promising candidates for future experimental investigation. We employ the efficient asymptotic approximation to predict ICEC cross sections and electron spectra. Intramolecular nuclear motion is included, while interparticle nuclear dynamics is neglected to permit an extensive survey. We identify several classes of atom-atom and atom-molecule systems with favourable ICEC cross sections and ICEC-to-photorecombination ratios, including halogen-halide systems and systems involving a proton and diatomic molecules such as N$_2$, O$_2$, CO, and NO. These findings point to atmospheric and astrochemical environments in which ICEC may be relevant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26116 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: ICEC cross section of H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: ICEC cross section of H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: ICEC cross section of Na [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: ICEC cross sections of selected halogen halides [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: ICEC cross sections of lithium halides against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: ICEC cross sections for atmospherically relevant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the ICEC electron spectrum of O+ H2 in blue with a Gaussian envelope (FWHM = 0.1eV) in orange. The peak of highest outgoing electron energy corresponds to the adiabatic ionization from v = 0 in H2 to v+ = 0 in H2 + . However, the peak with maximum intensity corre…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jahr and Fabian L

    Elena M. Jahr and Fabian L. Hofmann , year =

  2. [2]

    Jahr and Fabian L

    Elena M. Jahr and Fabian L. Hofman , year =

  3. [3]

    and Reinhardt, William P

    ONeil, Stephen V. and Reinhardt, William P. , title = ". J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 1978 , doi =

    1978

  4. [4]

    and Ono, Taishi and Nandi, Saikat and Iablonskyi, Denys and Kooser, Kuno and Bozek, John D

    Engin, Selma and González-Vázquez, Jesús and Maliyar, Gianluigi Grimaldi and Milosavljević, Aleksandar R. and Ono, Taishi and Nandi, Saikat and Iablonskyi, Denys and Kooser, Kuno and Bozek, John D. and Decleva, Piero and Kukk, Edwin and Ueda, Kiyoshi and Martín, Fernando , title =. Struct. Dyn. , volume =. 2019 , issn =. doi:10.1063/1.5106431 , url =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5106431 2019

  5. [5]

    and Taylor, Travis R

    Zanni, Martin T. and Taylor, Travis R. and Greenblatt, B. Jefferys and Soep, Benoit and Neumark, Daniel M. , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 1997 , doi =

    1997

  6. [6]

    1988 , volume =

    A Matsumoto , title =. 1988 , volume =

    1988

  7. [7]

    Electronic Spectra

    Ballhausen, C J and Hansen, A E. Electronic Spectra. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 1972

    1972

  8. [8]

    Herzberg

    G. Herzberg. Spectra of Diatomic Molecules. 1950

    1950

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    1996 , doi =

    Born, Max and Huang, Kun , title =. 1996 , doi =

    1996

  2. [10]

    , year =

    Taylor, John R. , year =. Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic Collisions , isbn =

  3. [11]

    Environment assisted electron capture , Author =. J. Phys. B. , Year =

  4. [12]

    Interatomic Coulombic electron capture , Author =. Phys. Rev. A. , Year =

  5. [13]

    Strongly Enhanced Recombination via Two-Center Electronic Correlations , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  6. [14]

    2023 , volume =

    Annika Bande and Elke Fasshauer and Axel Molle and Daniel Peláez and Federico M Pont and Nicolas Sisourat , title =. 2023 , volume =

    2023

  7. [15]

    Interatomic Coulombic electron capture beyond the virtual photon approximation , journal =

    Jan. Interatomic Coulombic electron capture beyond the virtual photon approximation , journal =. 2024 , volume =. doi:10.1063/5.0227540 , url =

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Jahr, Elena M. and. Influence of vibrational motion and temperature on interatomic Coulombic electron capture , journal =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  9. [17]

    and Fasshauer, Elke , title =

    Jahr, Elena M. and Fasshauer, Elke , title =. J. Chem. Phys , volume =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  10. [18]

    Interatomic Coulombic electron capture from first principles , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2018 , url =

    2018

  11. [19]

    Electron attachment to a proton in water by interatomic Coulombic electron capture: An R-matrix study , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2021 , url =

    2021

  12. [20]

    , title =

    Fasshauer, E. , title =. New J. Phys. , year =

  13. [21]

    and Dubois, A

    Molle, A. and Dubois, A. and Gorfinkiel, J. D. and Cederbaum, L. S. and Sisourat, N. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , year =

  14. [22]

    Impact of the nuclear motion on the interparticle Coulombic electron capture , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  15. [23]

    Controlled energy-selected electron capture and release in double quantum dots , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  16. [24]

    2016 , volume =

    Pont, Federico M and Bande, Annika and Cederbaum, Lorenz S , title =. 2016 , volume =. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/28/7/075301 , url =

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    and Gokhberg, Kirill and Cederbaum, Lorenz S

    Jahnke, Till and Hergenhahn, Uwe and Winter, Bernd and Dörner, Reinhard and Frühling, Ulrike and Demekhin, Philipp V. and Gokhberg, Kirill and Cederbaum, Lorenz S. and Ehresmann, Arno and Knie, André and Dreuw, Andreas , title =. Chem. Rev. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  18. [26]

    , title =

    Cederbaum, Lorenz S. , title =. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  19. [27]

    Fasshauer, Elke and Pernpointner, Markus and Gokhberg, Kirill , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  20. [28]

    Sobel'Man, I. I. , year =. An introduction to the theory of atomic spectra. , publisher =

  21. [29]

    Ultrafast. Phys. Rev. Lett. , author =. 2018 , pages =

    2018

  22. [30]

    Influence of nuclear motion on resonant two-center photoionization , volume =. Phys. Rev. A , author =. 2020 , pages =

    2020

  23. [31]

    Fano meets nuclei:

    Fasshauer, Elke , year =. Fano meets nuclei:

  24. [32]

    Nuclear dynamics of decaying states:. J. Chem. Phys. , author =. 1993 , pages =

    1993

  25. [33]

    Electron transfer and interatomic motion in two-center dielectronic recombination , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  26. [34]

    10.1051/0004-6361/202347456

    Dielectronic recombination plasma rate coefficients of Na-, Mg-, and Al-like iron ions: The role of the 2(s + p) → 4l, nl' and 3(s + p) → 5l, nl' resonances , DOI= "10.1051/0004-6361/202347456", url= "https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347456", journal =

    doi

  27. [35]

    ACS Omega , volume =

    Narayanan S J, Jishnu and Tripathi, Divya and Verma, Pooja and Adhikary, Amitava and Dutta, Achintya Kumar , title =. ACS Omega , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  28. [36]

    Tucker , title =

    Wallace H. Tucker , title =. 1978 , isbn =

    1978

  29. [37]

    Capture into deep electronic states in semiconductors , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 1983 , doi =

    1983

  30. [38]

    Campbell and M.J

    L. Campbell and M.J. Brunger , title =. Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  31. [39]

    J. E. Sansonettia and W. C. Martin , title =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  32. [40]

    Studies of differential and total photoionization cross sections of molecular nitrogen , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 1982 , doi =

    1982

  33. [41]

    A. C. Parr and J. B. West and M. R. F. King and K. Ueda and P. M. Dehmer and J. L. Dehmer , title =. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. , year =. doi:10.6028/jres.106.038 , url =

    doi

  34. [42]

    Lundsgaard, Morten F. V. and Rudolph, H. , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 1999 , doi =

    1999

  35. [43]

    K. P. Huber and G. Herzberg , title =. 1979 , doi =

    1979

  36. [44]

    Lias , title =

    Sharon G. Lias , title =. NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69 , publisher =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  37. [45]

    2025 , url =

    Ion Energetics Data , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  38. [46]

    Huber, K. P. and Herzberg, G. , title =. NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69 , publisher =

  39. [47]

    A&A , keywords =

    TOPbase at the CDS. A&A , keywords =. 1993 , volume =

    1993

  40. [48]

    The Opacity Project - the Topbase Atomic Database. Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis. , year =

  41. [49]

    Photoionization of atomic sodium near threshold , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  42. [50]

    1983 , volume =

    P Scott and A E Kingston and A Hibbert , title =. 1983 , volume =. doi:10.1088/0022-3700/16/21/014 , url =

    1983 doi

  43. [51]

    A Model Study , author =

    Photoionization from Outer Atomic Subshells. A Model Study , author =. Phys. Rev. , volume =. 1962 , doi =

    1962

  44. [52]

    Ankit Rohatgi , title =

  45. [53]

    Samson and W.C

    J.A.R. Samson and W.C. Stolte , journal =. Precision measurements of the total photoionization cross-sections of. 2002 , number =. doi:10.1016/S0368-2048(02)00026-9 , url =

    2002 doi

  46. [54]

    Photodetachment of negative halogen ions , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 1987 , doi =

    1987

  47. [55]

    , journal =

    Mandl, A. , journal =. Electron photodetachment cross sections of. 1976 , doi =

    1976

  48. [56]

    Single- and Double-Quantum Photodetachment of Negative Ions , author =. Phys. Rev. , volume =. 1967 , doi =

    1967

  49. [57]

    Animated-beam measurement of the photodetachment cross section of

    G\'en\'evriez, Matthieu and Urbain, Xavier , journal =. Animated-beam measurement of the photodetachment cross section of. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  50. [58]

    A & A , volume=

    Photodissociation and photoionisation of atoms and molecules of astrophysical interest , author=. A & A , volume=. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  51. [59]

    Franck—Condon Factors for the Ionization of

    Wacks, Morton E , journal=. Franck—Condon Factors for the Ionization of. 1964 , url =

    1964

  52. [60]

    Vibrationally resolved photoionization of

    O’Keeffe, P and Bolognesi, P and Moise, A and Richter, R and Ovcharenko, Y and Avaldi, L , journal=. Vibrationally resolved photoionization of. 2012 , doi=

    2012

  53. [61]

    A study of the absolute photoabsorption, photoionization and photodissociation cross sections and the photoionization quantum efficiency of oxygen from the ionization threshold to 490 Å , author =. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 1993 , doi =

    1993

  54. [62]

    Vibrational autoionization in polyatomic molecules

    Pratt, S.T. Vibrational autoionization in polyatomic molecules. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry. 2005. doi:10.1146/annurev.physchem.56.092503.141204

    2005 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Chan and G

    W.F. Chan and G. Cooper and C.E. Brion , journal =. Absolute optical oscillator strengths for discrete and continuum photoabsorption of carbon monoxide (7–200 eV) and transition moments for the. 1993 , doi =

    1993

  56. [64]

    Molecular rydberg transitions in carbon monoxide: term value/ionization energy correlation of BF, CO and N2 , author =. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 1980 , doi =

    1980

  57. [65]

    and Rankin, David W

    Wann, Derek A. and Rankin, David W. H. and McCaffrey, Philip D. and Martin, Jan M. L. and Mawhorter, Richard J. , title =. J. Phys. Chem. A , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  58. [66]

    Tennyson, Jonathan and Miller, Steve , title =. Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  59. [67]

    10.1051/0004-6361/202347925

    Modeling the structure of the dayside Venusian ionosphere: Impacts of protonation and Coulomb interaction , DOI= "10.1051/0004-6361/202347925", url= "https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347925", journal =

    doi

  60. [68]

    Chaffin, M. S. and Cangi, E. M. and Gregory, B. S. and Yelle, R. V. and Deighan, J. and Elliott, R. D. and Gr. Venus water loss is dominated by HCO+ dissociative recombination , journal =. 2024 , volume =. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07261-y , url =

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    Pavlov, A. V. , title=. Surv. Geophys. , year=. doi:10.1007/s10712-013-9253-z , url=

    doi

  62. [70]

    , title =

    Ferguson, Eldon E. , title =. Mass Spectrom. Rev. , volume =. doi:10.1002/mas.20112 , url =

    doi

  63. [71]

    St.-Maurice, J. -P. and Torr, D. G. , title =. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. , volume =. doi:10.1029/JA083iA03p00969 , url =

    doi

  64. [72]

    1978 , doi =

    Non-thermal hydrogen in the Venus exosphere: The ionospheric source and the hydrogen budget , journal =. 1978 , doi =

    1978

  65. [73]

    and Tanaka, Y

    Yoshino, K. and Tanaka, Y. , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 1968 , doi =

    1968

  66. [74]

    Harris and K

    Charles R. Harris and K. Jarrod Millman and St. Array programming with. 2020 , journal =. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , publisher =

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    , journal =

    Hunter, John D. , journal =. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment , year =

  68. [76]

    Eric Jones and Travis Oliphant and Pearu Peterson and others , title =

  69. [77]

    Ferguson and K

    Prabhakar Misra and David W. Ferguson and K. Analysis of the bands of the B2 +-X2 + transition in 12C16O+ and 13C16O+ , journal =. 1987 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2852(87)90192-5 , url =

    1987 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.