Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 70 references

Interatomic Coulombic decay in lithium-doped large helium nanodroplets induced by photoelectron impact excitation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photoelectron impact excitation drives efficient dopant ionization of lithium on large helium droplets.

desk verdict Incremental but real: clean coincidence evidence for photoelectron-impact ICD ionizing Li dopants in large He droplets; core claim holds, though the recombination step stays conjectural and one efficiency inference over-reaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04371 v1 pith:TWWTXADN submitted 2024-12-05 physics.atm-clus

L. Ben Ltaief , K. Sishodia , J. D. Asmussen , A. R. Abid , S. R. Krishnan , H. B. Pedersen , N. Sisourat , M. Mudrich This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atm-clus
keywords interatomicCoulombicdecayheliumnanodropletsphotoelectronimpactexcitationmetastableexcimerslithiumdopantionizationXUVelectron-ionrecombinationlow-energyelectrons
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

The paper aims to show that when extreme-ultraviolet photons with energy above about 44.4 eV strike large helium nanodroplets, the photoelectrons themselves do most of the ionizing work: they scatter off helium atoms, excite metastable He* atoms and He2* excimers, and the slowed electrons recombine with their parent He+ ions to form additional He* particles. These excited species then transfer energy to lithium dopants on the droplet surface through interatomic Coulombic decay (ICD), producing Li+ ions and characteristic low-energy electrons. The authors find this indirect, electron-scattering-induced ICD is more efficient at producing free Li ions than the direct resonant ICD pathway at 21.6 eV and than charge-transfer ionization. If correct, this makes photoelectron impact excitation the dominant dopant ionization route in large droplets across a broad XUV range, and suggests similar secondary-electron-driven ICD processes may operate in other condensed systems exposed to ionizing radiation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the indirect ICD chain initiated by photoelectron impact excitation: a photoelectron with kinetic energy $h\nu - 24.6$ eV undergoes inelastic scattering off helium atoms, creating He* in the $1s2s\,{}^3S$ metastable state (and some singlet and higher-lying states), while electron-He2+ recombination populates He2* excimers in the $a\,{}^3\Sigma_u^+$ state. These long-lived triplet excitations accumulate in the droplet, migrate to the surface, and transfer their excitation energy to lithium atoms or clusters by ICD, ejecting a low-energy electron and leaving Li+. The quantitative backbone is the ab initio calculation of ICD rates versus internuclear distance using the Fano-CI-Stieltjes method, which yields a characteristic exponential decay and a factor-of-five enhancement of the triplet over singlet rates.

What would settle it

A direct time-resolved experiment at hν ≈ 46 eV, using a pump-probe scheme with variable delay between the ionizing XUV pulse and a probe pulse sensitive to the 13.8 eV Li-ICD electrons, should show a delayed rise of the ICD signal on the ~0.1-1 ns timescale set by recombination and surface roaming; observation of an instantaneous ICD signal, or one that rises faster than the recombination time, would contradict the proposed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that irradiating large helium nanodroplets (radius > 40 nm) doped with lithium, using XUV photons of energy $h\nu \geq 44.4$ eV, triggers an indirect interatomic Coulombic decay channel: the photoelectron emitted from a helium atom loses energy by inelastic scattering, exciting neighboring helium atoms predominantly into the metastable $1s2s\,{}^3S$ triplet state and forming He2* excimers in their lowest triplet state, and the slowed electron can recombine with the parent He+ ion to create a second He*. The resulting He* and He2* species roam to the droplet surface and decay by ICD, He* + Li -> He + Li+ + eICD and He2* + Li -> He2 + Li+ + eICD, yielding Li+ ions and ICD electrons near 13.8 eV and 8.6 eV, respectively. The paper shows this indirect ICD produces far higher yields of both He and Li ions per absorbed photon than resonant photoexcitation at 21.6 eV or charge-transfer ionization, that it sets on near the electron-impact excitation threshold at about 45 eV, and that it operates only for droplets larger than a critical size of about 10 nm. Ab initio Fano-CI-Stieltjes calculations support the assignment by showing that the ICD rate for He*(${}^3S$) with Li exceeds that for the singlet state by about a factor of five at typical distances.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a photoelectron that has lost energy by inelastic scattering can recombine with its parent He+ ion to form a second metastable He* in the same droplet; if this recombination step is slow or does not happen, the efficiency and onset of the indirect ICD channel would require a different explanation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In large helium nanodroplets, photoelectron-impact ICD becomes the dominant dopant ionization channel for XUV photon energies from roughly 45 eV upward, exceeding direct resonant ICD and charge-transfer ionization.
  • The process redistributes electrons from the photoline into the energy-loss and ICD features without increasing the total electron yield, implying that ICD proceeds with near-unity probability once a photoelectron undergoes inelastic scattering.
  • Because triplet He* and He2* have long lifetimes, synchrotron pulses can accumulate excitations in one droplet over many pulses, amplifying the yield of characteristic ICD electrons and ions.
  • The Li+ ions formed by ICD carry kinetic energy from the repulsive He*-Li interaction, which promotes their ejection from the droplet and competes with [LiHe]+ complex formation.
  • The absence of excimer ICD under resonant 21.6 eV excitation indicates that He2* formation from singlet He* is blocked by a repulsive barrier; it occurs only via the electron-ion recombination route, confirming the different initial states populated by electron impact.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this mechanism extends to other dopants, then secondary-electron-induced ICD may be a general ionization route for any weakly bound condensed system, and the characteristic low-energy electrons it emits could contribute to radiation damage in biological matter.
  • The near-unity probability of ICD following inelastic scattering suggests that in dense media, measurements of low-energy electron yields should be corrected for this indirect pathway, which in helium droplets is strong enough to dominate direct photoionization channels.
  • A testable extension is to dope droplets with molecules of different ionization potentials and surface-binding energies; the ICD electron energy should shift according to the dopant's ionization energy, and the yield should track the triplet He* formation cross section.
  • Pump-probe time-resolved measurements could directly measure the delay between the photoelectron generation and the ICD electron emission, separating the ~100 ps electron-ion recombination time from the ~0.1-1 ns surface roaming time.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments on large helium nanodroplets (R ≳ 40 nm) doped with lithium atoms, irradiated with XUV photons above the He ionization threshold. The authors observe efficient production of Li+ ions and attribute it to interatomic Coulombic decay (ICD) involving metastable He* atoms and He2* excimers that are populated by photoelectron impact excitation, inelastic scattering, and electron-ion recombination. They support this with mass spectra, total and ion-coincidence electron spectra, photon-energy-dependent yields, doping-level and droplet-size dependence, and ab initio Fano-CI-Stieltjes ICD-rate calculations for He*(1S,3S)+Li. The central claim is that this indirect, photoelectron-impact-induced ICD is more efficient for dopant ionization than direct resonant ICD at 21.6 eV and than charge-transfer ionization.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper establishes photoelectron impact excitation as a dominant dopant-ionization route in large helium nanodroplets in the XUV range above about 45 eV, with potentially broader relevance for secondary-electron-driven ionization in condensed matter and biological systems. The paper's strengths include the use of electron-ion coincidence detection, systematic photon-energy, doping, and droplet-size scans, and ab initio ICD-rate calculations with no free parameters fitted to the data. The main risk is that the specific electron-ion recombination sub-mechanism is not directly established, and some quantitative inferences (notably the 'nearly unity probability' of ICD) are stronger than the data support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A and Sec. IV] The electron-ion recombination pathway is asserted without direct evidence. The text states that the slowed photoelectron recombines with its parent He+ to form a second He*, and the conclusion claims this recombination is confirmed by the data. However, the measured electron-ion coincidence spectra are equally consistent with the formation of two He* by two independent photoabsorption events in the same droplet, a process the paper itself invokes for resonant excitation (Sec. III.A, accumulation over synchrotron pulses). At hν ≈ 46.2 eV a single photoelectron has only ~21.6 eV kinetic energy, insufficient for two inelastic He* excitations, but two photons absorbed within the metastable lifetime would produce the same spectral features. An intensity-dependence measurement or a quantitative estimate of the one-photon vs two-photon contribution is required before the recombination mechanism can be claimed.
  2. [Sec. III.D] The inference of 'nearly unity probability' for ICD from the approximately constant total electron yield is not logically supported. Constant total electron counts are also compatible with undetected low-energy EEL electrons, with fluorescence losses, or with systematic variations in detection efficiency across the photon-energy scan; SM Fig. 5 shows only a redistribution of the photoline intensity, not a direct per-photon electron multiplicity. The authors should either provide a quantitative account of detection efficiencies and electron multiplicities or weaken this claim.
  3. [Figs. 2, 5, 6, 8 and SM Figs. 2-4] None of the normalized ion and electron yields are reported with statistical or systematic uncertainties, although all are normalized to the photon flux and to the hν-dependent He absorption cross section. This makes it difficult to assess the significance of the claimed order-of-magnitude enhancement at hν = 46.2 eV, the ~0.8 eV onset shift of the [LiHe2]+ yield, and the doping- and size-dependent trends. Please add error bars or at least state the dominant uncertainty budget.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III.B/III.C] The photon energy is given as 46.5 eV in Fig. 3 and as 46.2 eV in Fig. 4 and elsewhere; please harmonize the notation or clarify that these are different settings.
  2. [Sec. III.C] The unassigned maxima at ~12.0 eV (Li+) and ~12.3 eV (Li2+) in the electron coincidence spectra should be addressed, even if only to argue that they do not affect the conclusions; as written they leave an unexplained channel in the central data.
  3. [SM Sec. IV] The citation '[ ? ? ]' is unresolved, and the cross-reference to 'SM Fig. 5' for the 1S shoulder should presumably be SM Fig. 6.
  4. [SM Sec. IV] The statement that the 1S contribution is 'not fully resolved' is honest, but the text should state whether the shoulder was fit and what upper limit can be placed on its amplitude.
  5. [Sec. I] There is a typo in the introduction: 'irradation' should be 'irradiation.'
  6. [Fig. 2 caption] The factor 'x0.15' is not reconciled with the text's claim of 'more than one order of magnitude'; please clarify the scaling so that the factor can be verified from the plotted curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's peak assignments and ICD-rate calculations are anchored to independent atomic term values and ab initio methods, not to fitted inputs.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The Li-ICD and He-ICD electron energies are computed from independent atomic term values (E_ICD = 2E_3S - E_i = 15.0 eV, E_Li-ICD = E_3S - E_Li_i = 14.4 eV) and only compared with measured peaks; no parameter is adjusted to make the data match. The ab initio ICD rates use the Fano-CI-Stieltjes method and are externally benchmarked; their singlet/triplet ratio is an independent input, not a fit. The self-citations [21,24] supply the electron-ion recombination mechanism, but those are separately published experiments, and the recombination step is also argued from potential-curve similarity and the external [60] recombination time scale, so the citation is independent evidence rather than a circular premise. The conclusion that the data 'confirms the crucial role of recombination' is the most self-referential point, but the paper labels the mechanism as 'conjectured earlier' and does not use the current data as the sole proof; the current measurements extend the earlier mechanism to Li doping. The manuscript contains explicit uncertainty markers, including a missing '[ ? ? ]' reference in SM Sec. IV, 'tentatively interpret' in Sec. III.D, 'we cannot conclude on this point' in Sec. III.E, and a speculative roaming-velocity footnote; these are completeness and correctness weaknesses, but none is a case where an equation reduces to its input or a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. I therefore find no significant circularity; score 1 reflects only the mild self-referential confirmation wording.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several well-established background facts (ICD energies from atomic term values, droplet relaxation dynamics, the Fano-CI-Stieltjes method) and on the previously conjectured electron-ion recombination mechanism. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fano-CI-Stieltjes method yields quantitatively reliable ICD rates for He*+Li at the distances relevant to droplet surface ICD.
    Used in Sec. III.E and Fig. 7 to support the factor-of-5 difference between 3S and 1S ICD rates; the method is cited to Refs. [19,69] and not independently benchmarked in this paper.
  • domain assumption The slowed photoelectron recombines with its parent He+ ion to form a second He*, following the mechanism conjectured in Refs. [21,24].
    This premise is central to the pair-formation picture in Sec. III.A and to the onset behavior in Sec. III.D; it is not directly measured here.
  • domain assumption He* and He2* excitations fully relax to the lowest metastable states (1s2s 3S and a3Sigma_u+) and migrate to the droplet surface before ICD.
    Invoked to justify peak assignments and the absence of singlet features in Sec. III.B-III.D and SM Fig. 6; relies on prior droplet relaxation studies [9,33].
  • domain assumption Droplet radii and Li pick-up numbers are correctly inferred from nozzle temperature scaling [10] and the pick-up model [45].
    Used for size and doping dependence in Figs. 6 and 8; the paper itself notes the exact number of bound Li atoms is hard to estimate in Sec. II.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interatomic Coulombic decay in lithium-doped large helium nanodroplets induced by photoelectron impact excitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TWWTXADN

@misc{pith2026241204371,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interatomic Coulombic decay in lithium-doped large helium nanodroplets induced by photoelectron impact excitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TWWTXADN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04371}
}
read the original abstract

Irradiation of condensed matter with ionizing radiation generally causes direct photoionization as well as secondary processes that often dominate the ionization dynamics. Here, large helium (He) nanodroplets with radius >40 nm doped with lithium (Li) atoms are irradiated with extreme ultraviolet (XUV) photons of energy >44.4 eV and indirect ionization of the Li dopants is observed in addition to direct photoionization of the He droplets. Specifically, Li ions are efficiently produced by an interatomic Coulombic decay (ICD) process involving metastable He atoms and He_2 excimers which are populated by elastic and inelastic scattering of photoelectrons in the nanodroplets as well as by electron-ion recombination. This type of indirect ICD, observed in large He nanodroplets in nearly the entire XUV range, turns out to be more efficient than Li dopant ionization by ICD following direct resonant photoexcitation at a photon energy of 21.6 eV and by charge-transfer ionization. Indirect ICD processes induced by scattering of photoelectrons likely play an important role in other condensed phase systems exposed to ionizing radiation as well, including biological matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04371 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch of the experimental setup used in this work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) Mass spectra measured for large He nan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Electron spectra measured for large He nan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectra of all electrons (black lines) and of electrons recorded in coincidence with specific ions (colored lines) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The left column of panels in Fig. 4 show spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Yield of all ions containing Li (red line) and sum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Yields of He and Li ions as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Calculated average ICD rates for the He∗+Li reaction involving the two lowest excited singlet and triplet states of He∗ , 1s2s 1,3Σ. The vertical dashed line indicates the interatomic distance corresponding to the minimum of the potential energy curve of He∗Li [62]. to…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Yields of He and Li ions as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jahnke, U

    T. Jahnke, U. Hergenhahn, B. Winter, R. Do¨ orner, U. Fru¨ uhling, P. V. Demekhin, K. Gokhberg, L. S. Ceder- baum, A. Ehresmann, A. Knie, et al. , Interatomic and intermolecular coulombic decay, Chem. Rev. 120, 11295 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    L. S. Cederbaum, J. Zobeley, and F. Tarantelli, Giant intermolecular decay and fragmentation of clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4778 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Hergenhahn, Interatomic and intermolecular coulom- bic decay: The early years, J

    U. Hergenhahn, Interatomic and intermolecular coulom- bic decay: The early years, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 184, 78 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Stumpf, K

    V. Stumpf, K. Gokhberg, and L. S. Cederbaum, The role of metal ions in x-ray-induced photochemistry, Nat. Chem. 8, 237 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    X. Ren, E. Wang, A. D. Skitnevskaya, A. B. Trofimov, K. Gokhberg, and A. Dorn, Experimental evidence for ultrafast intermolecular relaxation processes in hydrated biomolecules, Nat. Phys. 1, (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Zhang, C

    P. Zhang, C. Perry, T. T. Luu, D. Matselyukh, and H. J. W¨ orner, Intermolecular coulombic decay in liquid water, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 133001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    X. Ren, E. Wang, J. Zhou, S. Jia, X. Wang, X. Xue, and A. Dorn, Ultrafast molecular dissociation induced by intermolecular coulombic decay in water clusters, Phys. Rev. A 108, 052814 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Gopakumar, I

    G. Gopakumar, I. Unger, P. Slav´ ıˇ cek, U. Hergenhahn, G. ¨Ohrwall, S. Malerz, D. C´ eolin, F. Trinter, B. Win- ter, I. Wilkinson, et al., Radiation damage by extensive local water ionization from two-step electron-transfer- mediated decay of solvated ions, Nat. Chem. 15, 1408 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Mudrich, A

    M. Mudrich, A. LaForge, A. Ciavardini, P. O’Keeffe, C. Callegari, M. Coreno, A. Demidovich, M. Devetta, M. Di Fraia, M. Drabbels, et al., Ultrafast relaxation of photoexcited superfluid he nanodroplets, Nat. Commun. 11 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    J. P. Toennies and A. F. Vilesov, Superfluid helium droplets: A uniquely cold nanomatrix for molecules and molecular complexes, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 43, 2622 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    Mudrich and F

    M. Mudrich and F. Stienkemeier, Photoionisaton of pure and doped helium nanodroplets, Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. 33, 301 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Slenczka and J

    A. Slenczka and J. P. Toennies, Molecules in Superfluid Helium Nanodroplets: Spectroscopy, Structure, and Dy- namics (Springer Nature, 2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Fr¨ ochtenicht, U

    R. Fr¨ ochtenicht, U. Henne, J. P. Toennies, A. Ding, M. Fieber-Erdmann, and T. Drewello, The photoioniza- tion of large pure and doped helium droplets, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 2548 (1996)

    1996

  6. [14]

    Buchta, S

    D. Buchta, S. R. Krishnan, N. B. Brauer, M. Drabbels, P. O’Keeffe, M. Devetta, M. Di Fraia, C. Callegari, R. Richter, M. Coreno, K. C. Prince, F. Stienkemeier, J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, and M. Mudrich, Extreme ultraviolet ionization of pure he nanodroplets: Mass- correlated ph...

    2013

  7. [15]

    A. C. LaForge, V. Stumpf, K. Gokhberg, J. von Vangerow, F. Stienkemeier, N. V. Kryzhevoi, P. O’Keeffe, A. Ciavardini, S. R. Krishnan, M. Coreno, K. C. Prince, R. Richter, R. Moshammer, T. Pfeifer, L. S. Cederbaum, and M. Mudrich, Enhanced ionization of embedded clus- ters by e...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Shcherbinin, A

    M. Shcherbinin, A. C. LaForge, V. Sharma, M. Devetta, R. Richter, R. Moshammer, T. Pfeifer, and M. Mudrich, Interatomic coulombic decay in helium nanodroplets, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013407 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Shcherbinin, A

    M. Shcherbinin, A. C. LaForge, M. Hanif, R. Richter, and M. Mudrich, Penning ionization of acene molecules by helium nanodroplets, J. Phys. Chem. A 122, 1855 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Wiegandt, F

    F. Wiegandt, F. Trinter, K. Henrichs, D. Metz, M. Pitzer, M. Waitz, E. J. Al Maalouf, C. Janke, J. Rist, N. Wech- selberger, T. Miteva, S. Kazandjian, M. Sch¨ offler, N. Sisourat, T. Jahnke, and R. D¨ orner, Direct obser- vation of interatomic coulombic decay and subsequent io...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Ben Ltaief, M

    L. Ben Ltaief, M. Shcherbinin, S. Mandal, S. Krish- nan, A. LaForge, R. Richter, S. Turchini, N. Zema, T. Pfeifer, E. Fasshauer, et al. , Charge exchange dom- inates long-range interatomic coulombic decay of excited metal-doped helium nanodroplets, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 10, 690...

    2019

  12. [20]

    L. B. Ltaief, M. Shcherbinin, S. Krishnan, R. Richter, T. Pfeifer, M. Bauer, A. Ghosh, M. Mudrich, K. Gokhberg, A. Laforge, et al., Electron transfer medi- ated decay of alkali dimers attached to he nanodroplets, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Ben Ltaief, K

    L. Ben Ltaief, K. Sishodia, S. Mandal, S. De, S. R. Kr- ishnan, C. Medina, N. Pal, R. Richter, T. Fennel, and M. Mudrich, Efficient indirect interatomic coulombic de- cay induced by photoelectron impact excitation in large pure helium nanodroplets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 023001 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    J. D. Asmussen, L. Ben Ltaief, K. Sishodia, A. R. Abid, B. Bastian, S. Krishnan, H. B. Pedersen, and M. Mu- drich, Dopant ionization and efficiency of ion and elec- tron ejection from helium nanodroplets, J. Chem. Phys. 159 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    J. D. Asmussen, A. R. Abid, A. Sundaralingam, B. Bas- tian, K. Sishodia, S. De, L. B. Ltaief, S. Krishnan, H. B. Pedersen, and M. Mudrich, Secondary ionization of pyrimidine nucleobases and their microhydrated deriva- tives in helium nanodroplets, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 25, 2...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Ben Ltaief, K

    L. Ben Ltaief, K. Sishodia, R. Richter, B. Bastian, J. D. Asmussen, S. Mandal, N. Pal, C. Medina, S. R. Krishnan, K. von Haeften, and M. Mudrich, Spectroscopically re- solved resonant interatomic coulombic decay in photoex- cited large he nanodroplets, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013019 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Bastian, J

    B. Bastian, J. Asmussen, L. B. Ltaief, H. Pedersen, K. Sishodia, S. De, S. Krishnan, C. Medina, N. Pal, R. Richter, et al., Observation of interatomic coulombic decay induced by double excitation of helium in nan- odroplets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 233001 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Jurkoviˇ cov´ a, L

    L. Jurkoviˇ cov´ a, L. Ben Ltaief, A. Hult Roos, O. Hort, O. Finke, M. Albrecht, Z. Hoque, E. Klimeˇ sov´ a, A. Sun- daralingam, R. Antipenkov, et al. , Bright continuously tunable vacuum ultraviolet source for ultrafast spec- troscopy, Communications Physics 7, 26 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ovcharenko, V

    Y. Ovcharenko, V. Lyamayev, R. Katzy, M. De- vetta, A. LaForge, P. O’Keeffe, O. Plekan, P. Finetti, M. Di Fraia, M. Mudrich, M. Krikunova, P. Piseri, M. Coreno, N. B. Brauer, T. Mazza, S. Stranges, C. Grazioli, R. Richter, K. C. Prince, M. Drabbels, C. Callegari, F. Stienkemei...

    2014

  20. [28]

    A. C. LaForge, M. Drabbels, N. B. Brauer, M. Coreno, M. Devetta, M. Di Fraia, P. Finetti, C. Grazioli, R. Katzy, V. Lyamayev, T. Mazza, M. Mudrich, P. O’Keeffe, Y. Ovcharenko, P. Piseri, O. Plekan, K. C. Prince, R. Richter, S. Stranges, C. Callegari, T. Moller, and F. Stienkem...

    2014

  21. [29]

    Ovcharenko, A

    Y. Ovcharenko, A. LaForge, B. Langbehn, O. Plekan, R. Cucini, P. Finetti, P. O’Keeffe, D. Iablonskyi, T. Nishiyama, K. Ueda, et al. , Autoionization dynam- ics of helium nanodroplets resonantly excited by intense xuv laser pulses, New J. Phys. 22, 083043 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    A. C. LaForge, R. Michiels, Y. Ovcharenko, A. Ngai, J. M. Escart´ ın, N. Berrah, C. Callegari, A. Clark, M. Coreno, R. Cucini, M. Di Fraia, M. Drabbels, E. Fasshauer, P. Finetti, L. Giannessi, C. Grazioli, D. Iablonskyi, B. Langbehn, T. Nishiyama, V. Oliver, P. Piseri, O. Plek...

    2021

  23. [31]

    J. D. Asmussen, R. Michiels, K. Dulitz, A. Ngai, U. Bangert, M. Barranco, M. Binz, L. Bruder, M. Danailov, M. Di Fraia, J. Eloranta, R. Feifel, L. Gi- annessi, M. Pi, O. Plekan, K. C. Prince, R. J. Squibb, D. Uhl, A. Wituschek, M. Zangrando, C. Callegari, F. Stienkemeier, and ...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Michiels, M

    R. Michiels, M. Abu-samha, L. B. Madsen, M. Binz, U. Bangert, L. Bruder, R. Duim, A. Wituschek, A. C. LaForge, R. J. Squibb, R. Feifel, C. Callegari, M. Di Fraia, M. Danailov, M. Manfredda, O. Plekan, K. C. Prince, P. Rebernik, M. Zangrando, F. Stienke- meier, and M. Mudrich, ...

    2021

  25. [33]

    LaForge, J

    A. LaForge, J. D. Asmussen, B. Bastian, M. Bonanomi, C. Callegari, S. De, M. Di Fraia, L. Gorman, S. Hartweg, S. Krishnan, et al. , Relaxation dynamics in excited he- lium nanodroplets probed with high resolution, time- resolved photoelectron spectroscopy, Phys. Chem. Chem. Ph...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Buchta, S

    D. Buchta, S. R. Krishnan, N. B. Brauer, M. Drabbels, P. O’Keeffe, M. Devetta, M. Di Fraia, C. Callegari, R. Richter, M. Coreno, K. C. Prince, F. Stienkemeier, R. Moshammer, and M. Mudrich, Charge transfer and penning ionization of dopants in or on helium nan- odroplets expose...

    2013

  27. [35]

    Boudaıffa, P

    B. Boudaıffa, P. Cloutier, D. Hunting, M. A. Huels, and L. Sanche, Resonant formation of dna strand breaks by low-energy (3 to 20 ev) electrons, Science 287, 1658 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Alizadeh, T

    E. Alizadeh, T. M. Orlando, and L. Sanche, Biomolecular damage induced by ionizing radiation: The direct and in- direct effects of low-energy electrons on dna, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 66, 379 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    S. M. Pimblott and J. A. LaVerne, Production of low- energy electrons by ionizing radiation, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 76, 1244 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Barth, S

    S. Barth, S. Joshi, S. Marburger, V. Ulrich, A. Lind- blad, G. ¨Ohrwall, O. Bj¨ orneholm, and U. Hergenhahn, Observation of resonant interatomic coulombic decay in ne clusters, J. Chem. Phys. 122 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    Mucke, T

    M. Mucke, T. Arion, M. F¨ orstel, T. Lischke, and U. Her- genhahn, Competition of inelastic electron scattering and interatomic coulombic decay in ne clusters, J. Electron Spectros. Relat. Phenomena 200, 232 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Iablonskyi, K

    D. Iablonskyi, K. Nagaya, H. Fukuzawa, K. Motomura, Y. Kumagai, S. Mondal, T. Tachibana, T. Takanashi, T. Nishiyama, K. Matsunami, P. Johnsson, P. Piseri, G. Sansone, A. Dubrouil, M. Reduzzi, P. Carpeggiani, C. Vozzi, M. Devetta, M. Negro, F. Calegari, A. Tra- battoni, M. C. C...

    2016

  33. [41]

    L. B. Ltaief, A. Hans, P. Schmidt, X. Holzapfel, F. Wiegandt, P. Reiss, C. K¨ ustner-Wetekam, T. Jahnke, R. D¨ orner, A. Knie, and A. Ehresmann, Vuv photon emission from ne clusters of varying sizes following pho- ton and photoelectron excitations, J. Phys. B: At., Mol. Opt. P...

    2018

  34. [42]

    Malerz, F

    S. Malerz, F. Trinter, U. Hergenhahn, A. Ghrist, H. Ali, C. Nicolas, C.-M. Saak, C. Richter, S. Hartweg, L. Na- hon, et al. , Low-energy constraints on photoelectron spectra measured from liquid water and aqueous solu- tions, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 23, 8246 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    J. P. Toennies, A. F. Vilesov, and K. B. Whaley, Su- perfluid helium droplets: An ultracold nanolaboratory, Physics Today 45, 31 (2001)

    2001

  36. [44]

    Bastian, J

    B. Bastian, J. D. Asmussen, L. Ben Ltaief, A. Cza- sch, N. C. Jones, S. V. Hoffmann, H. B. Pedersen, and M. Mudrich, A new endstation for extreme-ultraviolet spectroscopy of free clusters and nanodroplets, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    S. Kuma, H. Goto, M. N. Slipchenko, A. F. Vilesov, A. Khramov, and T. Momose, Laser induced fluorescence of mg-phthalocyanine in he droplets: Evidence for flux- ionality of large H 2 clusters at 0.38 K, J. Chem. Phys. 127 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    B¨ unermann and F

    O. B¨ unermann and F. Stienkemeier, Modeling the for- mation of alkali clusters attached to helium nanodroplets and the abundance of high-spin states, Eur. Phys. J. D 61, 645 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Dick, Inverting ion images without abel inversion: maximum entropy reconstruction of velocity maps, Phys

    B. Dick, Inverting ion images without abel inversion: maximum entropy reconstruction of velocity maps, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 570 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Joppien, R

    M. Joppien, R. Karnbach, and T. M¨ oller, Electronic ex- citations in liquid helium: The evolution from small clus- ters to large droplets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2654 (1993)

    1993

  41. [49]

    A. A. Scheidemann, V. V. Kresin, and H. Hess, Capture of lithium by 4He clusters: Surface adsorption, penning ionization, and formation of HeLi+, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 2839 (1997)

    1997

  42. [50]

    D. N. McKinsey, C. R. Brome, S. N. Dzhosyuk, R. Golub, K. Habicht, P. R. Huffman, E. Korobkina, S. K. Lamore- aux, C. E. H. Mattoni, A. K. Thompson, L. Yang, and J. M. Doyle, Time dependence of liquid-helium fluores- cence, Phys. Rev. A 67, 062716 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Haberland, B

    H. Haberland, B. v. Issendorff, R. Fr¨ ochtenicht, and J. Toennies, Absorption spectroscopy and photodissoci- ation dynamics of small helium cluster ions, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 8773 (1995)

    1995

  44. [52]

    Samson and W

    J. Samson and W. C. Stolte, Precision measurements of the total photoionization cross-sections of He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe, J. Electron. Spectros. Relat. Phenomena 123, 265 (2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    J. D. Asmussen, K. Sishodia, B. Bastian, A. R. Abid, L. B. Ltaief, H. B. Pedersen, S. De, C. Medina, N. Pal, R. Richter, et al., Electron energy loss and angular asym- metry induced by elastic scattering in superfluid helium nanodroplets, Nanoscale 15, 14025 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Shcherbinin, F

    M. Shcherbinin, F. V. Westergaard, M. Hanif, S. Kr- ishnan, A. LaForge, R. Richter, T. Pfeifer, and M. Mu- drich, Inelastic scattering of photoelectrons from he nan- odroplets, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 044304 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Buchenau, J

    H. Buchenau, J. P. Toennies, and J. A. Northby, Excita- tion and ionization of 4he clusters by electrons, J. Chem. Phys. 95, 8134 (1991)

    1991

  48. [56]

    S. L. Fiedler and J. Eloranta, Interaction of helium ryd- berg state atoms with superfluid helium, J. Low Temp. Phys. 174, 269 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Nijjar, A

    P. Nijjar, A. Krylov, O. Prezhdo, A. Vilesov, and C. Wit- tig, Conversion of He (2 3S) to He 2 (a3σ+ u ) in liquid he- lium, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9, 6017 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    J. D. Asmussen, R. Michiels, U. Bangert, N. Sisourat, M. Binz, L. Bruder, M. Danailov, M. Di Fraia, R. Feifel, L. Giannessi, et al. , Time-resolved ultrafast interatomic coulombic decay in superexcited sodium-doped helium nanodroplets, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13, 4470 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    The roaming velocity is taken as the critical Landau velocity ≈ 60 m/s [70] and the mean roaming distance is ∼R

    This estimate of the time constant is based on the as- sumption that two He ∗’s emerging to the surface of He nanodroplets undergo a roaming motion before colliding and decaying by ICD. The roaming velocity is taken as the critical Landau velocity ≈ 60 m/s [70] and the mean ro...

  52. [60]

    A. V. Benderskii, R. Zadoyan, N. Schwentner, and V. A. Apkarian, Photodynamics in superfluid helium: Fem- tosecond laser-induced ionization, charge recombination, and preparation of molecular Rydberg states, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 1542 (1999)

    1999

  53. [61]

    W. E. Ernst and A. W. Hauser, Metal clusters synthe- sized in helium droplets: structure and dynamics from experiment and theory, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 23, 7553 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Movre, L

    M. Movre, L. Thiel, and W. Meyer, Theoretical inves- tigation of the autoionization process in molecular colli- sion complexes: He*(2 3s)+ Li(22s) → He + Li+ + e−, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 1484 (2000)

    2000

  55. [63]

    D. N. McKinsey, C. R. Brome, J. S. Butterworth, S. N. Dzhosyuk, P. R. Huffman, C. E. H. Mattoni, J. M. Doyle, R. Golub, and K. Habicht, Radiative decay of the metastable he 2(a3Σ+ u ) molecule in liquid helium, Phys. Rev. A 59, 200 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    J. W. Keto, F. J. Soley, M. Stockton, and W. A. Fitzsim- mons, Dynamic properties of neutral excitations pro- duced in electron-bombarded superfluid helium. ii. after- glow fluorescence of excited helium molecules, Phys. Rev. A 10, 887 (1974)

    1974

  57. [65]

    Carter, S

    F. Carter, S. Hertel, M. Rooks, P. McClintock, D. McK- insey, and D. Prober, Calorimetric observation of single He∗ 2 excimers in a 100-mk He bath, J. Low Temp. Phys. 186, 183 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    ˇCerm´ ak, Individual efficiency curves for the excitation of 23s and 21s states of helium by electron impact, J

    V. ˇCerm´ ak, Individual efficiency curves for the excitation of 23s and 21s states of helium by electron impact, J. Chem. Phys. 44, 3774 (1966)

    1966

  59. [67]

    Dugan, H

    J. Dugan, H. Richards, and E. E. Muschlitz Jr, Excitation of the metastable states of helium by electron impact, J. Chem. Phys. 46, 346 (1967)

    1967

  60. [68]

    Ralchenko, R

    Y. Ralchenko, R. Janev, T. Kato, D. Fursa, I. Bray, and F. de Heer, Electron-impact excitation and ioniza- tion cross sections for ground state and excited helium atoms, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 94, 603 (2008)

    2008

  61. [69]

    Miteva, S

    T. Miteva, S. Kazandjian, and N. Sisourat, On the com- putations of decay widths of fano resonances, Chem. Phys. 482, 208 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    N. B. Brauer, S. Smolarek, E. Loginov, D. Mateo, A. Hernando, M. Pi, M. Barranco, W. J. Buma, and M. Drabbels, Critical landau velocity in helium nan- 13 odroplets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 153002 (2013). Supplementary Material Interatomic Coulombic decay in large lithium-doped h...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.