Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Electrospray Propulsion Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry Diagnostic

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a validated TOF-SIMS diagnostic that identifies secondary ions produced when electrospray plumes strike metal surfaces.

desk verdict First TOF-SIMS diagnostic for electrospray plume-surface impacts; the capability demonstration is real, but the mass-axis calibration needs stronger anchors before the chemistry is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09474 v1 pith:2OXMEC3L submitted 2024-11-14 physics.ins-det

Giuliana Caramella Hofheins , Zach Ulibarri , Elaine M. Petro This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det PACS 07.75.+h79.20.Rf
keywords electrospraypropulsiontime-of-flightsecondaryionmassspectrometryplume-surfaceinteractionsionicliquidpropellantEMI-BF4emissiongoldtargetfacilityeffects
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 reports the construction and first use of an electrospray time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry diagnostic, an instrument that identifies the mass-to-charge ratio of ions sputtered when an electrospray thruster plume hits a metal surface. The authors aim to establish that this diagnostic can measure the chemical composition and relative intensity of secondary ions as a function of operating parameters such as impact angle, primary ion energy, and target material. With a 4 keV EMI-BF4 plume striking a gold target, the instrument detected molecular secondary ions in both polarities: positive spectra show the EMI+ cation and fragment families consistent with imidazolium and hydrocarbon cracking, while negative spectra are dominated by H− with F− and carbon-containing species. If the capability holds, it gives electric propulsion developers a way to study plume-surface interactions that contribute to electrode and emitter degradation and to facility effects that skew ground-based thruster testing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometer built around the flight-time relation $t_{\mathrm{TOF}} = L_{\mathrm{TOF}}\sqrt{2/((z/m)V_{\mathrm{target}})} + t_{\mathrm{delay}}$, where the target voltage sets the secondary-ion energy and the flight distance and time delay are calibrated by fitting exponentially modified Gaussians to two anchor peaks, EMI+ at m/z = 111 and a suspected carbon line at m/z = 12. The extraction arrangement, a high-voltage target held at opposite polarity to the primary beam plus a grounded mesh that accelerates secondary ions into the drift tube, converts the sputtered ion cloud into an approximately monoenergetic beam whose arrival times separate by mass-to-charge ratio. An electrostatic gate pulsed at 1 kHz defines the start time, and a microchannel plate records the arrival. The central design choice is biasing the target so that the same field accelerates primary ions in and secondary ions out.

What would settle it

Block the primary beam and record the same spectrum: if the suspected $m/z = 12$ calibration line still appears, it is not a secondary ion, and re-calibrating without it would show whether the reported mass assignments shift by more than the quoted ±1.4 amu.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a TOF-SIMS diagnostic built from an externally wetted tungsten emitter, a biased target with extraction mesh, an electrostatic deflection gate, and a microchannel plate detector can resolve the secondary ion population produced by energetic electrospray plume impacts. The authors demonstrate the system using EMI-BF4 primary ions at 4 keV impinging on a gold-coated silicon target at roughly 5e-5 Torr. In positive secondary mode they assign peaks at m/z = 27, 29, 39, 41, 43, 55, 57, 67, 69, 88, and 111 amu, including the intact EMI+ cation and fragment families spaced by methyl-group losses; in negative mode they identify H−, C−/CH−, F−/HF−, C2/C2H/CN species, and a tentative peak at m/z = 35. The authors interpret the positive fragments as either collision-induced dissociation products of the primary ionic liquid ion or ions from surface hydrocarbon contamination, and the negative spectrum as dominated by adsorbate-related hydrogen with fluorine from the propellant anion. The paper's contribution is the validated instrument itself and the first spectra, not a definitive separation of these sources.

Load-bearing premise

The entire mass scale rests on two anchor peaks, the EMI+ ion at $m/z = 111$ and a faint line assumed to be carbon at $m/z = 12$, so if that suspected carbon line is an artifact or the timing offset drifts between positive and negative runs, the species assignments in both tables would shift by roughly ±1.4 amu.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the diagnostic works as claimed, researchers can map secondary-ion composition against incident angle, impact energy, propellant, and target surface, giving a systematic dataset for electrospray plume-surface interaction models.
  • The observed molecular secondary ions in both polarities imply that backstreaming charged species, not just neutrals, should be included in models of electrode and emitter degradation and in the interpretation of ground-test diagnostics.
  • Because the source is interchangeable, the same setup can be applied to other ionic liquid propellants and to emitter arrays or flight-like thrusters.
  • Because the microchannel plate can be replaced by a current-collecting electrode with a transimpedance amplifier, the diagnostic can be replicated in ordinary electric-propulsion laboratories.
  • Determining whether secondary ions originate from primary plume fragments or from surface contamination is the next step toward quantitative source apportionment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a cleaner calibration test would be to spike the target with a known mass standard; if the fitted flight distance and time delay shift outside the quoted range, the reported identifications would need revision.
  • Beyond the paper, if the positive fragment families are mostly hydrocarbon contamination, the diagnostic's most reliable use would be comparative, surface-to-surface or condition-to-condition, rather than absolute.
  • Beyond the paper, the roughly threefold stronger negative signal dominated by H− suggests the diagnostic could double as a sensitive monitor of vacuum quality and adsorbate coverage.
  • Beyond the paper, repeatedly re-fitting the two calibration parameters across many spectra would convert the stated ±1.4 amu uncertainty into a measured, run-specific uncertainty.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the design, operation, and first experimental results of a time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF-SIMS) diagnostic for electrospray propulsion. The instrument uses an externally wetted tungsten emitter operating with the ionic liquid EMI-BF4 as the primary ion source, a biased target with an extraction grid, a pulsed electrostatic gate, and a microchannel plate detector. Primary plume composition is characterized for both polarities, and secondary ion spectra from 4 keV impacts on a gold-coated silicon target are presented for positive and negative secondary polarities. The paper reports tentative mass assignments, identifying families of hydrocarbon and ionic-liquid fragments, and discusses their possible origins in target contamination or primary-ion fragmentation. The authors claim the diagnostic can provide chemical composition information for secondary species relevant to thruster lifetime and facility effects.

Significance. If the calibration and peak assignments are robust, the instrument would be a novel, relatively inexpensive addition to electrospray propulsion test facilities, enabling direct measurement of secondary ion composition from plume-surface interactions. The conceptual design is sound, and the primary source characterization is a useful contribution. The work is relevant to the electric propulsion community and fits the scope of physics.ins-det. However, the current spectral assignments rely on a two-point calibration that includes a 'suspected' carbon anchor and parameters transferred across polarity runs; this limitation must be resolved before the chemical-composition claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.C.1, III.B] The mass-axis calibration is determined by fitting exactly two unknown parameters (L_TOF and tdelay) to two anchor masses, EMI+ at m/z = 111 and a 'faint suspected carbon line' at m/z = 12 (Section III.B). With two anchors and two unknowns, the 'minimization' produces zero residual by construction and provides no information about calibration accuracy. If the carbon anchor is misidentified (e.g., it could be CH3+ at m/z = 15, N+ at m/z = 14, or a ringing artifact), all mass assignments in Tables II and III shift systematically. The authors should constrain one parameter by direct measurement, add a third calibration mass with known identity, and report the residuals and propagated mass uncertainty.
  2. [III.B] The positive-spectrum calibration parameters are copied to the negative spectrum because fewer lines are available. The text states that tdelay has been observed to fluctuate by up to 100 ns between experiments; this introduces an unquantified systematic offset in the negative mass assignments. For the negative peaks at m/z = 1–35, a 100 ns timing error corresponds to roughly 0.1–0.8 amu (from Eq. (1)), which is comparable to the spacing between candidate formulas (e.g., F− vs. HF− at m/z = 19, and C2− vs. CN− at m/z = 24–26). The negative spectrum should be self-calibrated using known low-mass ions (such as H− and a second well-established peak) or the authors should provide a systematic error budget for the negative axis.
  3. [Abstract, IV] The abstract and conclusion state that the diagnostic provides 'chemical composition' of secondary ions. With the reported ±1.4 amu resolution, the assignments in Tables II and III are degenerate: m/z = 29 has three candidate formulas, m/z = 43 has two, m/z = 88 is explicitly 'largely unknown,' and m/z = 35 has no immediately identifiable species. The data support detection of ion groups at discrete mass-to-charge ratios and tentative identification of common organic fragmentation families, but not unique chemical identities. Please either add a demonstration of species-confirming resolution (e.g., isotopic fine structure or a reference-standard spectrum) or temper the compositional claim to 'tentative mass assignment' throughout the manuscript.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] There are several typos, including 'diamter' (Section II), 'preformed' (Section III.B), 'sprectrum' (Section III.B.2), 'Keithely' (Section II.A), and 'flourine' (Section III.B.2). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [II.C.1] The peak-fitting procedure (number of EMG components, initial guesses, fit bounds) is not sufficiently detailed to be reproducible; please provide the fitting routine and the resulting EMG parameters or a representative fit.
  3. [III.B] The 'faint suspected carbon line' used as the m/z = 12 anchor is not listed in Table II for the positive spectrum; please indicate its location in the raw/derivative data or clarify which spectrum it belongs to.
  4. [Table III] Table III lists m/z = 0 for electrons; since Eq. (1) assumes finite mass, it would be clearer to identify the electron arrival as a separate timing marker rather than a mass channel.
  5. [References] The reference list contains incomplete entries (e.g., [5], [6], [12], [20], [24], [38] lack journal/volume/page information). Please standardize to the journal's format.
  6. [Figures 6 and 8] It would aid the reader to annotate the ringing artifacts and the identified species arrival steps directly on the raw traces, so the peak-picking from the derivative is transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild calibration self-reference: the mass axis is fixed using two assumed anchor masses, one 'suspected carbon,' and those same masses are later reported as detected species; the central diagnostic-capability claim is otherwise independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.B (X-axis calibration); Tables II and III]
    "X-axis error minimization as detailed in Sec. II C 1, was done with the EMI+ ion at mass 111 and a faint suspected carbon line at mass 12, yielding a flight distance of 0.97 meters and a tdelay of 299 ns, both of which are close the expected values based on direct measurement and other unrelated experiments [32]."

    The mass-to-charge axis for the whole spectrum is established by assigning mass 111 to EMI+ and mass 12 to a suspected carbon line, then fitting L_TOF and tdelay to those two assumed masses. The same two species are subsequently reported as detections: EMI+ at m/z = 111 in Table II and C-/CH- at m/z = 12 in Table III. Their identification is therefore an input to the calibration rather than an independent measurement. This is a mild, honestly disclosed calibration self-reference, not a statistical forcing of all peaks, and it does not undermine the central claim that secondary ion emission is detected.

full rationale

The core claim that a TOF-SIMS diagnostic can detect secondary ions from electrospray plume-surface impacts is supported by raw time-of-flight curves and does not reduce to the calibration anchors. The calibration procedure in Sec. II.C.1 and III.B uses two assumed masses (EMI+ at 111 and a suspected carbon line at 12) to fit L_TOF and tdelay. Reporting EMI+ at 111 and C-/CH- at 12 in Tables II and III is thus partially circular for those two species: their identities are assumed to set the axis, not independently determined. This is a minor, honestly disclosed calibration self-reference, not a derivation chain. The remaining peak assignments are cross-checked against external SIMS/RGA literature and NIST, and the paper explicitly labels the carbon anchor as 'suspected.' Self-citations (e.g., [29], [32]) describe hardware provenance, not load-bearing theory. Overall circularity is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are calibrated experimental measurements. The principal free parameters are the flight distance and time delay fitted to anchor the mass axis; the axioms include assumptions about secondary ion initial energies and the validity of the calibration anchors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Flight distance L_TOF = 0.97 m
    Fitted by minimizing mass error for assumed anchor peaks (EMI+ at 111 amu and C at 12 amu); all m/z assignments depend on this parameter (Eq. 1).
  • Time delay tdelay = 299 ns
    Fitted simultaneously with L_TOF to calibrate x-axis; stated to fluctuate by about 100 ns, causing +/-1.4 amu error at 111 amu.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Secondary ions are ejected with energies much less than qVtarget, so their kinetic energy is approximately qVtarget.
    Invoked for Eq. (1) to convert flight time to m/z; if initial energies are a significant fraction of 2 kV, mass assignments would be wrong.
  • ad hoc to paper The faint line at m/z = 12 used as a calibration anchor is a real carbon peak.
    Used as an anchor in the x-axis error minimization (Section III B); misidentification would shift all masses.
  • domain assumption The calibration parameters L_TOF and tdelay are constant within an experiment and can be transferred from the positive to the negative ion spectrum.
    The paper copies positive-ion parameters to the negative spectrum (Section II C 1); if unstable, negative-ion masses are offset.
  • domain assumption The observed time-of-flight structure is not produced solely by electrical ringing in the detector circuit.
    Ringing is acknowledged in the raw data; if some 'species groups' are artifacts, the corresponding identifications would be false. The paper assumes they can distinguish ringing spikes from real arrival peaks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrospray Propulsion Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry Diagnostic." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OXMEC3L

@misc{pith2026241109474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrospray Propulsion Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry Diagnostic},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OXMEC3L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09474}
}
read the original abstract

The design and capability of a novel time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry electrospray propulsion diagnostic is presented to investigate secondary species emission from surface impingement of high-velocity, energetic molecular ion plumes. Designed on the basis of traditional Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) principles, this diagnostic provides information on the relative intensity and chemical composition of secondary species given electrospray operational parameters like incident angle, primary ion energy, and target surface composition. The system consists of an externally-wetted tungsten ion source operating with room temperature ionic liquid propellant, a target with a secondary species extraction mesh, and a time-of-flight mass spectrometer featuring an electrostatic deflection gate and a multichannel plate detector. Results show that energetic primary plume impacts with metallic surfaces induce molecular secondary ion emission in both positive and negative polarities. Likely sources of these secondary ions are considered - including hydrocarbon contamination of the target surface and charged fragments of the molecular primary ionic liquid ions. For electrospray propulsion, these secondary species contribute not only to lifetime limiting processes intrinsic to thruster operation like impingement and thus degradation of electrodes and emitters, but also contribute to facility effects corrupting ground-based testing and thruster flight qualification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09474 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Structural formulas for common ionic liquid propel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Simplified kinetically-assisted potential sputtering of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The source (a) directs the primary beam at the target (b), where secondary ion emission is induced and directed toward the electrostatic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A side profile cross section of the ion source, with (i) go [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Primary time-of-flight of both firing modes of the single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Raw time-of-flight measurement of secondary ions pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Positive secondary mass spectra from a negative EMI-BF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Raw time-of-flight measurement of negative secondary ions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Negative secondary mass spectra from a positive EMI-BF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    As this is a critical parameter in Eqn

    X-Axis Determination Due to the nature of the TOF-SIMS target in the vacuum chamber, the precise flight distance is difficult to accurately measure and changes slightly from experiment to experiment. As this is a critical parameter in Eqn. 1, this complicates precise determination of the x-axis of TOF curves and mass spectra. In addition, the electrostati...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Positive Secondary Ion Spectrum The raw time-of-flight curve for the positive secondary ions formed from a negative EMI-BF4 plume impacting a gold tar- get is shown in Fig. 6. While the figure reports normalized signal, the maximum voltage reading on the oscilloscope read tens of millivolts, approximately one to two orders of mag- nitude less than typical...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Negative Secondary Ion Spectrum The raw time-of-flight curve for the negative secondary ions formed from a positive EMI-BF4 plume impacting a gold tar- get is shown in Fig. 8. The raw oscilloscope voltage read- ings corresponding to amplified current signals showed a peak of several hundred millivolts for the negative secondary ions, with an average signa...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Gallud and P

    X. Gallud and P. C. Lozano, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 933, A43 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    [42], and possible species assign- ment is found in Table III

    and Van Stipdonket al. [42], and possible species assign- ment is found in Table III. IV . CONCLUSION A novel electrospray time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry diagnostic was experimentally validated to probe secondary ion mass-to-charge ratio chemical composi- tion from plume-surface impacts. This was achieved via a sin- 9 FIG. 9. Negative seco...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    D. M. Goebel, I. Katz, and I. G. Mikellides, Fundamentals of electric propulsion (John Wiley & Sons, 2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Electrospray propulsion,

    P. C. Lozano, M. Martà nez-Sà ˛ anchez, and V . Hruby, “Electrospray propulsion,” in Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2010) https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470686652.eae121

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470686652.eae121 2010

  8. [8]

    E. M. Petro, A. Bruno, P. Lozano, L. E. Perna, and D. Freeman, in AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2020 F orum, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum (American Institute of Aeronautics and As- tronautics)

    work page 2020

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Mier-Hicks and P

    F. Mier-Hicks and P. C. Lozano, 40, 642, publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

  2. [10]

    E. M. Petro, X. Gallud, S. K. Hampl, M. Schroeder, C. Geiger, and P. C. Lozano, 131, 193301 ()

  3. [11]

    Lozano and M

    P. Lozano and M. Martà nez-Sà ˛ anchez,282, 415

  4. [12]

    Hruby, M

    V . Hruby, M. Gamero-Castano, D. Spence, C. Gasdaska, N. Demmons, R. McCormick, P. Falkos, J. Young, and W. Con- nolly, in 2004 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.04TH8720), V ol. 1 (2004) p. 213 V ol.1

    2004

  5. [13]

    P. C. Lozano, B. L. Wardle, P. Moloney, and S. Rawal,40, 842

  6. [14]

    Thuppul, P

    A. Thuppul, P. L. Wright, A. L. Collins, J. K. Ziemer, and R. E. Wirz, 7, 108, number: 8 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

  7. [15]

    J. K. Ziemer, T. M. Randolph, G. W. Franklin, V . Hruby, D. Spence, N. Demmons, T. Roy, E. Ehrbar, J. Zwahlen, R. Martin, and W. Connolly, in 2010 IEEE Aerospace Con- ference (2010) pp. 1–19

    2010

  8. [16]

    Fundamental ion-surface interactions in plasma thrusters,

    R. D. Kolasinski, “Fundamental ion-surface interactions in plasma thrusters,”

  9. [17]

    Bendimerad and E

    R. Bendimerad and E. Petro, 1, 27

  10. [18]

    Krejci, F

    D. Krejci, F. Mier-Hicks, R. Thomas, T. Haag, and P. Lozano, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 54, 447 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Uchizono, C

    N. Uchizono, C. Marrese-Reading, S. Arestie, A. Collins, J. Ziemer, and R. Wirz, Applied Physics Letters 121 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    C. Ma, V . Messina, C. N. Ryan, J. L. Rovey, Z. Putnam, M. Lembeck, and S. Berg (Electric Propulsion Society)

  13. [21]

    N. M. Uchizono, A. L. Collins, C. Marrese-Reading, S. M. Arestie, J. K. Ziemer, and R. E. Wirz, 130, 143301

  14. [22]

    Atomistic numerical ap- proach to ion evaporation from a tungsten surface for electrospray thrusters,

    N. Takahashi and P. Lozano, “Atomistic numerical ap- proach to ion evaporation from a tungsten surface for electrospray thrusters,” in 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit (2009) https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2009-5089

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    X. G. Cidoncha, P. C. Lozano, R. Bendimerad, E. M. Petro, and S. K. Hampl, in 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO) (2022) pp. 1–11

    2022

  16. [24]

    Van Ham, L

    R. Van Ham, L. Van Vaeck, F. Adams, and A. Adriaens, 20, 1088

  17. [25]

    N. M. Uchizono and R. E. Wirz, Secondary Species Emission and Behavior for Electrospray Thrusters , Ph.D. thesis, Univer- sity of California, Los Angeles (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    M. R. Klosterman, J. L. Rovey, and D. A. Levin, Journal of Applied Physics 131, 243302 (2022), _eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0060615/16509352/243302_1_online.pdf

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    S. Z. Shaik, A. R. Bendimerad, A. T. M. Tahsin, A. Smith, P. Lozano, and E. Petro, inAIAA SCITECH 2024 F orum, AIAA SciTech Forum (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro- nautics)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Van der Heide, Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry: An Intro- duction to Principles and Practices (John Wiley & Sons, Inc)

    P. Van der Heide, Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry: An Intro- duction to Principles and Practices (John Wiley & Sons, Inc)

  21. [29]

    Ulibarri and E

    Z. Ulibarri and E. Petro, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13862 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. R. Fuoco, G. Gillen, M. B. J. Wijesundara, W. E. Wallace, and L. Hanley, 105, 3950

  23. [31]

    J. A. Townes, A. K. White, E. N. Wiggins, K. D. Krantzman, B. J. Garrison, and N. Winograd, 103, 4587

  24. [32]

    Gillen and S

    G. Gillen and S. Roberson, 12, 1303

  25. [33]

    Fujiwara and N

    Y . Fujiwara and N. Saito, 46, 348, _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sia.5662

    doi

  26. [34]

    E. M. Petro, M. Cezairli, M. Schroeder, and P. Lozano, inInter- national Electric Propulsion Conference 2019 (Electric Propul- sion Society, 2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    P. C. Lozano, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 39, 126 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    C. T. Lyne, M. F. Liu, and J. L. Rovey, 2, 13

  29. [37]

    S. P. Cogan, Z. Ulibarri, E. Petro, and A. E. Hofmann, in 2023 IEEE Aerospace Conference (IEEE, 2023) pp. 1–7

    2023

  30. [38]

    These carbon-containing species were also reported in Van Stipdonk et al

    reports a negative ions from EMI-Im film from the spec- tral family around m/z = 25 amu, with C− 2 (m/z = 24), C2H− (m/z = 25), and C 2H− 2 + CN− (m/z = 26) which is reflected in this spectra, reportedly as fragmentation products from the primary EMI+ cation. These carbon-cont...

  31. [39]

    Jia-Richards, Journal of Applied Physics 132, 074501 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0094699

    O. Jia-Richards, Journal of Applied Physics 132, 074501 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0094699

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Ulibarri, T

    Z. Ulibarri, T. Munsat, M. V oss, J. Fontanese, M. Horányi, S. Kempf, and Z. Sternovsky, Icarus 391, 115319 (2023). 11

    2023

  33. [41]

    Savitzky and M

    A. Savitzky and M. J. Golay, Analytical chemistry 36, 1627 (1964)

    1964

  34. [42]

    P. J. Linstrom and W. G. Mallard, eds., NIST Chemistry WebBook (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 2019) (retrieved June 9, 2024)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Bundaleski, S

    N. Bundaleski, S. Caporali, S. P. Chenakin, A. M. C. Moutinho, O. M. N. D. Teodoro, and A. Tolstogouzov, 353, 19

  36. [44]

    GÃijnster, O

    J. GÃijnster, O. HÃ˝ ufft, S. Krischok, and R. Souda, Surface Science 602, 3403 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    S. Bell, A. Taqui Md Tahsin, and E. M. Petro

  38. [46]

    Arisz, J

    P. Arisz, J. Pureveen, and R. Heeren, Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry 31, 2356 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    M. J. Van Stipdonk, V . Santiago, and E. A. Schweikert, Journal of Mass Spectrometry 34, 554 (1999)

    1999

  40. [48]

    SiljestrÃ˝ um, T

    S. SiljestrÃ˝ um, T. Hode, J. Lausmaa, P. SjÃ˝ uvall, J. Toporski, and V . Thiel, Organic Geochemistry40, 135 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Tsutsumi, S

    Y . Tsutsumi, S. Ueda, M. Ikegawa, and J. Kobayashi, Jour- nal of Vacuum Science & Technology A 8, 2764 (1990), https://doi.org/10.1116/1.576664

    1990 doi

  42. [50]

    Maurice, P

    L. Maurice, P. Duval, and G. Gorinas, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology 16, 741 (1979), https://doi.org/10.1116/1.570073

    1979 doi

  43. [51]

    Ioniza- tion energy in the periodic table of elements,

    National Center for Biotechnology Information, “Ioniza- tion energy in the periodic table of elements,” https: //pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/periodic-table/ ionization-energy (2024), retrieved June 19, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wil- son, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, Ä. Polat, Y . ...

  45. [53]

    S. Z. Shaik and P. C. Lozano, in 38th International Electric Propulsion Conference (International Electric Propulsion Con- ference, 2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    ItÃd’lÃd’, S

    E. ItÃd’lÃd’, S. Granroth, D. Ha, K. Kooser, H. Levola, E. Rachlew, K. Tanzer, and E. Kukk, Journal of Photochem- istry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 356, 283 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    V . S. Smentkowski and C. Moore, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A 31 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Van Ooij and R

    W. Van Ooij and R. Brinkhuis, Surface and interface analysis 11, 430 (1988)

    1988

  49. [57]

    Oresmaa, P

    L. Oresmaa, P. Aulaskari, and P. Vainiotalo, Rapid Com- munications in Mass Spectrometry: An International Journal Devoted to the Rapid Dissemination of Up-to-the-Minute Re- search in Mass Spectrometry 20, 1071 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.