Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Symmetry aspects of spin-filtering in molecular junctions: hybridization and quantum interference effects

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lowering the symmetry of a magnetic molecular junction activates one HOMO and one LUMO whose destructive interference can fully suppress majority-spin conductance, yielding complete spin polarization.

desk verdict A symmetry-strain mechanism for spin filtering that is clearly explained, honestly caveated for realistic electrodes, but slightly over-claimed in the abstract and under-supported by missing PWCOND comparison and unquantified orbital couplings. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06470 v1 pith:JHO2LHCY submitted 2019-08-18 cond-mat.mes-hall

Dongzhe Li , Rajdeep Banerjee , Sourav Mondal , Ivan Maliyov , Mariya Romanova , Yannick J. Dappe , Alexander Smogunov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spinfilteringmolecularjunctionquantuminterferenceorbitalsymmetryFanoresonancebenzenesiliconchainmechanicalstrain
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 argues that mechanically straining a magnetic molecular junction can act as a symmetry switch for spin transport. When the junction is symmetric, both HOMO and LUMO orbitals of a molecule like benzene are orthogonal to the electrode's s-channel and do not conduct. Tilting the molecule or bending a silicon chain breaks this symmetry and activates exactly one HOMO and one LUMO that overlap with the s-channel; these two orbitals, having opposite parity with respect to the transport plane, interfere destructively with the tunneling background and suppress the majority-spin conductance, in model junctions completely. Minority-spin conductance is simultaneously enhanced by stronger hybridization. If correct, the mechanism provides a practical way to tune the spin-filtering ratio of a single-molecule device by mechanical strain.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on orbital symmetry selection and the scattering phase-shift identity $T = \sin^2(\delta_e - \delta_o)$, where $\delta_e$ and $\delta_o$ are the phase shifts of the even and odd combinations of electron waves from the two electrodes. A three-level tight-binding model reproduces the transmission: one level (HOMO-2) provides the antisymmetric tunneling background, while the two symmetry-activated orbitals (HOMO1 and LUMO1) couple symmetrically and antisymmetrically, respectively; their opposite parity makes the phase shifts cross and drives transmission to zero in the HOMO–LUMO gap.

What would settle it

Spin-resolved conductance measurements (or multichannel DFT transport calculations) on a Ni/benzene/Ni junction as a function of continuous tilting angle should show a sharp Fano dip in the majority-spin transmission at the Fermi level for intermediate angles, with the dip deepening as the s-channel dominates; observing a finite transmission floor that does not vanish even with model single-channel electrodes would rule out the proposed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Lowering the symmetry of a molecular junction between ferromagnetic electrodes switches on exactly one HOMO and one LUMO of matching symmetry, and their destructive interference with the existing tunneling channel suppresses the majority-spin transmission at the Fermi energy. In model junctions with Ni chain electrodes this suppression is complete, giving fully spin-polarized current, while minority-spin conductance is enhanced. The same effect appears for a benzene molecule (tilted vs perpendicular) and a three-atom silicon chain (zigzag vs linear), indicating a general symmetry-based route to controlling spin polarization.

Load-bearing premise

The central mechanism assumes that in the low-symmetry geometry exactly one HOMO and one LUMO of opposite parity become the only new channels coupling to the electrode s-band; if additional orbitals with the same symmetry participate, or if more than one s-like conduction channel carries spin-up current, the destructive interference is diluted and the complete suppression disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mechanical strain can act as a switch: tilting the molecule or bending the chain turns majority-spin current on or off.
  • In junctions where a single s-channel dominates spin-up transport, the current becomes fully spin-polarized at the Fermi energy.
  • Fano-like features in the transmission spectrum are a measurable signature of the activated orbital interference.
  • The spin-filtering ratio can be tuned over a wide range by geometry alone, without changing the molecule or the electrode material.
  • The mechanism generalizes to any molecule whose degenerate frontier orbitals split under a symmetry-lowering distortion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the parity condition directly by designing a molecule whose two activated orbitals are forced to have the same parity; the model predicts transmission would remain finite in the gap, confirming the mechanism.
  • The same symmetry argument should apply to non-magnetic electrodes if a single conduction channel dominates, turning a quantum-interference zero into a gate-controlled conductance dip rather than a spin filter.
  • Experimental realization may be easier in break-junction setups that allow continuous strain; the predicted complete suppression in model chains suggests that electrodes with fewer active channels would show the largest effect.
  • The condition that only one HOMO and one LUMO are activated is fragile: any additional low-lying orbital that couples to the s-channel could wash out the zero, so the effect is most robust in molecules with a clean HOMO–LUMO gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper proposes a symmetry-based mechanism for controlling spin filtering in molecular junctions. Lowering the junction symmetry, by tilting a benzene molecule or by forming a zigzag Si chain between Ni electrodes, activates one symmetric HOMO and one symmetric LUMO that were inactive in the high-symmetry geometry. According to the authors, destructive interference between these newly activated orbitals and the background s-channel tunneling suppresses majority-spin transmission, while minority-spin conductance is enhanced by stronger hybridization. The argument is supported by DFT structure relaxation, PWCOND transport calculations, TB/NEGF calculations, and a three-level phase-shift model. Complete suppression of the spin-up transmission at the Fermi energy is obtained for model single-s-channel Ni-chain electrodes, whereas realistic Ni(111) electrodes show only partial suppression because additional d-channels participate in transport.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism survives the verification requested below, the paper would be a useful contribution to molecular spintronics: it gives a transparent symmetry criterion (the activated HOMO and LUMO must have opposite even/odd parity with respect to the perpendicular plane) and makes a falsifiable prediction for junctions with single-s-channel electrodes. The manuscript's internal consistency is a strength: the three-level model reproduces the zeros in the transmission and cleanly contrasts opposite-parity with same-parity couplings. The significance is moderated by the gap between the headline claim of dramatic suppression and the realistic-electrode results, and by the absence of a quantitative check of the central symmetry assignment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II C, Eq. (2) and Figs. 2c, 5c] The central mechanism rests on the visually inferred assignment that exactly HOMO1 and LUMO1 acquire nonzero coupling to the Ni s-channel in the tilted/zigzag geometries and that their left/right couplings have opposite parity, but no quantitative hopping integrals t_iL and t_iR or orbital overlaps are reported from the DFT wavefunctions. This matters because if additional orbitals, such as HOMO-2, acquire comparable s-overlap, or if the parity assignment is wrong, the transmission zero is destroyed, as the paper itself demonstrates for same-parity levels in Fig. 3g-i. I request a direct evaluation and report of t_iL and t_iR (or an equivalent projection) for both molecular junctions.
  2. [Sec. II B and Appendix B, Fig. 7] The text states that 'more sophisticated transport calculations with PWCOND have produced very similar transmission curves' and refers to Appendix B, but Fig. 7 is explicitly labeled as 'TB results' and no PWCOND transmission curve appears anywhere in the manuscript. This cross-validation claim is therefore unsupported as written; the authors should either include the PWCOND spin-resolved transmission curves or remove the claim.
  3. [Abstract, Fig. 2 caption, and Sec. II D, Fig. 4a] The abstract's 'dramatic suppression' and the Fig. 2 caption's 'fully suppressed' refer to model Ni-chain electrodes, while Sec. II D shows that with realistic Ni(111) electrodes the spin-up conductance is only slightly reduced and the transmission curve shows no zero-transmission points. The headline claim should be reworded to specify that the mechanism fully suppresses the s-channel contribution, and that full suppression of the total conductance requires single-s-channel electrodes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II C] The parameters of the three-level model in Eq. (2) are given only in the caption of Fig. 3; restating them in the text would improve readability.
  2. [Sec. II C and Sec. II D] The text cites 'SI Appendix, Fig. S1' and 'SI Appendix, Fig. S2', but no supporting information is included in the submitted manuscript; these citations should be resolved, either by incorporating the figures or by deleting the references.
  3. [Sec. II B] The manuscript does not provide the TB parameters or structural input files used to generate Figs. 2, 4, and 5; making these available would substantially improve reproducibility and allow independent checking of the symmetry assignment.
  4. [Introduction and Appendix B] The text contains several typos and grammatical errors, including 'manipule', 'Is is', 'analize', and 'σ-inteference', which should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symmetry mechanism is derived from independent DFT wavefunctions and an illustrative phase-shift model, not fitted from the target transmission.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on first-principles DFT and TB calculations whose parameters are extracted from ab initio QE calculations, not fitted to the target transmission curves. The three-level model of Sec. II C uses arbitrary energies and couplings to demonstrate that opposite-parity levels produce transmission zeros; it is not tuned to match the computed transmissions, and the zero-crossing condition (δe = δo) is a general mathematical result. The crucial symmetry assignments (HOMO1 and LUMO1 being symmetric with respect to the YZ plane, and having opposite even/odd left-right couplings) are read from the DFT wavefunction isosurfaces in Figs. 2c and 5c, which are independent of the transmission outcome; they are not defined in terms of the conductance suppression. The paper explicitly shows that if the levels had the same parity, no gap-region zero would arise (Fig. 3g-i), so the mechanism is falsifiable and not circular. Self-citations (Refs. 15, 16) are background context and are not load-bearing for the present derivation. The unverified PWCOND comparison noted in Sec. II B is a completeness concern, not a circularity, because no parameter was fitted to reproduce the target observable. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained. Score 0 indicates no circularity. Minor interpretive choices (e.g., visual parity read-off) are matters of evidence quality, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on standard DFT/NEGF and symmetry arguments rather than new postulated entities. The only hand-chosen numbers are the illustrative three-level model parameters; the DFT-based TB model has no fitted target parameters. The listed axioms are standard for this subfield.

free parameters (2)
  • Three-level model site energies epsilon1=-7, epsilon2=-2, epsilon3=2 = -7, -2, 2 (arbitrary units)
    Chosen by hand to mimic HOMO-2, HOMO1, and LUMO1 in the illustrative phase-shift model (Sec. II C, Fig. 3). They are not fitted to the DFT transmission, but the demonstration of zeros depends on having one level below and one above the Fermi energy with opposite-parity couplings.
  • Three-level model couplings t1L=-t1R=3 and t2L=t2R=t3L=t3R=1 = 3 and 1 (arbitrary units)
    Chosen by hand to represent antisymmetric HOMO-2 coupling, symmetric HOMO1 coupling, and antisymmetric LUMO1 coupling; the exact magnitudes do not drive the qualitative conclusion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Density functional theory with PBE and ultrasoft pseudopotentials gives reliable relaxed geometries and electronic structure for Ni/molecule junctions.
    Used throughout for relaxations and TB parametrization; no benchmark against higher-level theory or experiment is provided.
  • domain assumption Coherent Landauer/NEGF transport at the Fermi energy captures the junction conductance; electron-phonon and inelastic effects are negligible.
    Transmission at the Fermi energy is used as conductance (Fig. 1b); no temperature or bias effects are included.
  • domain assumption Collinear magnetism with no spin-orbit coupling, so spin-up and spin-down channels are independent.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. II; relevant for Ni electrodes where spin-orbit effects could mix channels.
  • standard math Orbital symmetry selection rules determine coupling: only molecular orbitals with the same reflection symmetry as electrode states overlap.
    Used to assign HOMO1/LUMO1 coupling to the s-channel; standard quantum mechanics, visually supported by wavefunction plots.
  • standard math Friedel sum rule d(delta(E))/dE = pi times Delta(rho(E)) in the phase-shift model.
    Used in Sec. II C to relate phase shifts to added DOS; standard result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry aspects of spin-filtering in molecular junctions: hybridization and quantum interference effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JHO2LHCY

@misc{pith2026190806470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry aspects of spin-filtering in molecular junctions: hybridization and quantum interference effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JHO2LHCY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06470}
}
read the original abstract

Control and manipulation of electric current and, especially, its degree of spin polarization (spin filtering) across single molecules are currently of great interest in the field of molecular spintronics. We explore one possible strategy based on the modification of nanojunction symmetry which can be realized, for example, by a mechanical strain. Such modification can activate new molecular orbitals which were inactive before due to their orbital mismatch with the electrode's conduction states. This can result in several important consequences such as (i) quantum interference effects appearing as Fano-like features in electron transmission and (ii) the change in molecular level hybridization with the electrode's states. We argue that the symmetry change can affect very differently two majority- and minority-spin conductances and thus alter significantly the resulting spin-filtering ratio as the junction symmetry is modified. We illustrate the idea for two basic molecular junctions: Ni/benzene/Ni (perpendicular vs tilted orientations) and Ni/Si chain/Ni (zigzag vs linear chains). In both cases, one highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and one lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) (out of HOMO and LUMO doublets) are important. In particular, their destructive interference with other orbitals leads to dramatic suppression of majority-spin conductance in low-symmetry configurations. For a minority-spin channel, on the contrary, the conductance is strongly enhanced when the symmetry is lowered due to an increase in hybridization strength. We believe that our results may offer a potential route for creating molecular devices with a large on-off ratio of spin polarization via quantum interference effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: DFT calculations for Ni/Benzene/Ni junctions: (a) total energy as a function of electrode-electrode separation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: TB transport calculations of model Benzene junctions with Ni atomic chains as electrodes for different Benzene tilting angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Simple 3-level 1D model providing different quantum interference patters in transmission. Molecular (summed over all three levels) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: TB calculations for Benzene junctions with realistic fcc-Ni(111) electrodes: (a) spin-resolved transmissions as a function of tilting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: TB transport calculations with model Ni chain electrodes for a 3-atom Si chain in linear and zigzag geometry: (a) spin-resolved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Density of states (DOS) and projected DOS on Carbon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: TB results for spin-resolved transmission functions for different tilting angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author A. R. Rocha , author V. M. Garcia-Suarez , author S. W. Bailey , author C. J. Lambert , author J. Ferrer , and author S. Sanvito , journal Nature materials volume 4 , pages 335 ( year 2005 )

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Sanvito , journal Nature Physics volume 60 , pages 562 ( year 2010 )

    author S. Sanvito , journal Nature Physics volume 60 , pages 562 ( year 2010 )

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    note The spin polarization is defined as SP =(G_ -G_ )/(G_ +G_ ) , where G_ and G_ are the conductances of majority and minority spin channels, respectively

    work page

  4. [4]

    C C ak r , author D

    author D. C C ak r , author D. M. Ot\'alvaro , and author G. Brocks , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 90 , pages 245404 ( year 2014 )

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Schmaus , author A

    author S. Schmaus , author A. Bagrets , author Y. Nahas , author T. K. Yamada , author A. Bork , author M. Bowen , author E. Beaurepaire , author F. Evers , and author W. Wulfhekel , journal Nature nanotechnology volume 6 , pages 185 ( year 2011 )

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Bagrets , author S

    author A. Bagrets , author S. Schmaus , author A. Jaafar , author D. Kramczynski , author T. K. Yamada , author M. Alouani , author W. Wulfhekel , and author F. Evers , journal Nano Letters volume 12 , pages 5131 ( year 2012 )

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    author N. M. Caffrey , author P. Ferriani , author S. Marocchi , and author S. Heinze , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 88 , pages 155403 ( year 2013 )

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Atodiresei , author J

    author N. Atodiresei , author J. Brede , author P. Lazi c \' c , author V. Caciuc , author G. Hoffmann , author R. Wiesendanger , and author S. Bl\"ugel , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 105 , pages 066601 ( year 2010 )

    work page 2010

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    author S. L. Kawahara , author J. Lagoute , author V. Repain , author C. Chacon , author Y. Girard , author S. Rousset , author A. Smogunov , and author C. Barreteau , journal Nano Letters volume 12 , pages 4558 ( year 2012 )

    2012

  2. [10]

    Li , author C

    author D. Li , author C. Barreteau , author S. L. Kawahara , author J. Lagoute , author C. Chacon , author Y. Girard , author S. Rousset , author V. Repain , and author A. Smogunov , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 93 , pages 085425 ( year 2016 a )

    2016

  3. [11]

    author I. N. Sivkov , author O. O. Brovko , author D. I. Bazhanov , and author V. S. Stepanyuk , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 89 , pages 075436 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  4. [12]

    Jacob , author J

    author D. Jacob , author J. Fern\'andez-Rossier , and author J. J. Palacios , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 74 , pages 081402 ( year 2006 )

    2006

  5. [13]

    Bagrets , author N

    author A. Bagrets , author N. Papanikolaou , and author I. Mertig , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 70 , pages 064410 ( year 2004 )

    2004

  6. [14]

    author Y. H. Tang and author C. J. Lin , journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry C volume 120 , pages 692 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  7. [15]

    Smogunov and author Y

    author A. Smogunov and author Y. J. Dappe , journal Nano Letters volume 15 , pages 3552 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  8. [16]

    Li , author Y

    author D. Li , author Y. J. Dappe , and author A. Smogunov , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 93 , pages 201403 ( year 2016 b )

    2016

  9. [17]

    Vardimon , author M

    author R. Vardimon , author M. Klionsky , and author O. Tal , journal Nano Letters volume 15 , pages 3894 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  10. [18]

    Hansen , author G

    author T. Hansen , author G. C. Solomon , author D. Q. Andrews , and author M. A. Ratner , journal The Journal of chemical physics volume 131 , pages 194704 ( year 2009 )

    2009

  11. [19]

    author G. C. Solomon , author D. Q. Andrews , author R. H. Goldsmith , author T. Hansen , author M. R. Wasielewski , author R. P. Van Duyne , and author M. A. Ratner , journal Journal of the American Chemical Society volume 130 , pages 17301 ( year 2008 )

    2008

  12. [20]

    author S. V. Aradhya , author J. S. Meisner , author M. Krikorian , author S. Ahn , author R. Parameswaran , author M. L. Steigerwald , author C. Nuckolls , and author L. Venkataraman , journal Nano Letters volume 12 , pages 1643 ( year 2012 ), note pMID: 22352939

    2012

  13. [21]

    Sam-ang and author M

    author P. Sam-ang and author M. G. Reuter , journal New Journal of Physics volume 19 , pages 053002 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  14. [22]

    Borges , author J

    author A. Borges , author J. Xia , author S. H. Liu , author L. Venkataraman , and author G. C. Solomon , journal Nano Letters volume 17 , pages 4436 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  15. [23]

    Miao , author H

    author R. Miao , author H. Xu , author M. Skripnik , author L. Cui , author K. Wang , author K. G. L. Pedersen , author M. Leijnse , author F. Pauly , author K. Wärnmark , author E. Meyhofer , et al. , journal Nano Letters volume 18 , pages 5666 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  16. [24]

    author M. H. Garner , author H. Li , author Y. Chen , author T. A. Su , author Z. Shangguan , author D. W. Paley , author T. Liu , author F. Ng , author H. Li , author S. Xiao , et al. , journal Nature p. pages 1 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  17. [25]

    Giannozzi , author S

    author P. Giannozzi , author S. Baroni , author N. Bonini , author M. Calandra , author R. Car , author C. Cavazzoni , author D. Ceresoli , author G. L. Chiarotti , author M. Cococcioni , author I. Dabo , et al. , journal Journal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of ...

    2009

  18. [26]

    author J. P. Perdew , author K. Burke , and author M. Ernzerhof , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 77 , pages 3865 ( year 1996 )

    1996

  19. [27]

    Smogunov , author A

    author A. Smogunov , author A. Dal Corso , and author E. Tosatti , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 70 , pages 045417 ( year 2004 )

    2004

  20. [28]

    Aut\`es , author C

    author G. Aut\`es , author C. Barreteau , author D. Spanjaard , and author M.-C. Desjonqu\`eres , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 77 , pages 155437 ( year 2008 )

    2008

  21. [29]

    Rakhmilevitch , author S

    author D. Rakhmilevitch , author S. Sarkar , author O. Bitton , author L. Kronik , and author O. Tal , journal Nano Letters volume 16 , pages 1741 ( year 2016 a ), note pMID: 26926769

    2016

  22. [30]

    Kiguchi , author O

    author M. Kiguchi , author O. Tal , author S. Wohlthat , author F. Pauly , author M. Krieger , author D. Djukic , author J. C. Cuevas , and author J. M. van Ruitenbeek , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 101 , pages 046801 ( year 2008 )

    2008

  23. [31]

    Yelin , author R

    author T. Yelin , author R. Vardimon , author N. Kuritz , author R. Korytár , author A. Bagrets , author F. Evers , author L. Kronik , and author O. Tal , journal Nano Letters volume 13 , pages 1956 ( year 2013 )

    1956

  24. [32]

    Rakhmilevitch , author S

    author D. Rakhmilevitch , author S. Sarkar , author O. Bitton , author L. Kronik , and author O. Tal , journal Nano Letters volume 16 , pages 1741 ( year 2016 b )

    2016

  25. [33]

    author P. P. Baruselli , author M. Fabrizio , author A. Smogunov , author R. Requist , and author E. Tosatti , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 88 , pages 245426 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  26. [34]

    author T. A. Su , author H. Li , author R. S. Klausen , author J. R. Widawsky , author A. Batra , author M. L. Steigerwald , author L. Venkataraman , and author C. Nuckolls , journal Journal of the American Chemical Society volume 138 , pages 7791 ( year 2016 )

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.