Apparent fractionation of isotopes in moderately cooled argon

Alexander Cholach; Dmitry Yakovin

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 31 references

Apparent fractionation of isotopes in moderately cooled argon

T0 review · 1 major / 1 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 Cooling argon gas in a cryostat fractionates its isotopes because argon dimers form and get trapped on the cold walls, so the sampled gas is depleted in the heavy isotope.

desk verdict A potentially huge argon isotope effect with a central mechanism that its own model cannot reproduce; worth a referee's time, but not acceptance as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17111 v1 pith:NELSUMN5 submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Alexander Cholach , Dmitry Yakovin This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords argonisotopesisotopefractionationdimerizationcryogenicseparationmassspectrometrydensityfunctionaltheoryphasetransitionscoefficient

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

Natural argon cooled in a closed cryostat shows isotope fractionation far larger than equilibrium vapor-pressure effects predict, and this paper argues the cause is dimer formation and retention rather than distillation. In the gas region above the condensation temperature the apparent separation coefficients are $\alpha_{40}=0.80$, $\alpha_{38}=1.07$ and $\alpha_{36}=1.28$; the authors explain these by 40Ar-containing dimers that form on cooling, get trapped in the cryostat, and are invisible to room-temperature mass spectrometry. Once condensation starts the coefficients grow to $\alpha_{40}=0.56$, $\alpha_{38}=2.24$ and $\alpha_{36}=1.67$, attributed to a 170-520 J/mol difference between heat of condensation and heat of dissolution of the light isotopes in 40Ar condensate. A sympathetic reader would care because the result points to a simple, low-energy route to isotope enrichment that uses only moderate cooling and a cold surface.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the coupled dimerization and trapping equilibrium. Cooling drives $^{40}\mathrm{Ar} + {}^n\mathrm{Ar} \leftrightarrow {}^{40}\mathrm{Ar}{}^n\mathrm{Ar}$ for $n = 40, 38, 36$, and the dimers are then partitioned between gas and a trapped state by $\tilde{K}_2 = \exp(Q_{\mathrm{trap}}/RT)$, with $Q_{\mathrm{trap}}$ taken as the condensation heat. Because the mass spectrometer is at room temperature, trapped dimers dissociate before measurement; the measured composition is therefore the 'apparent' composition, which differs from the true gas composition exactly through the dimer channel. DFT cluster-formation heats of 0.30, 0.52 and 0.70 kJ per atom for Ar$_2$, Ar$_3$ and Ar$_4$ provide the clustering tendency, while the separation coefficient $\alpha_i = \frac{x_i/(1-x_i)}{x_{i,0}/(1-x_{i,0})}$ converts measured fractions into the reported enrichment factors.

What would settle it

Sample the cryostat gas in situ at 152.4 K through a cold inlet that preserves dimers (for example, with cryogenic Raman or a cooled mass-spectrometer source); if no Ar$_2$ is detected, the dimer-retention mechanism is wrong. Alternatively, hold the cryostat at fixed temperature for many times the total relaxation time and draw samples from different positions; if the apparent $\alpha$ values collapse toward 1, the reported fractionation is a transient, non-representative sampling artifact rather than a real dimer effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that apparent fractionation of argon isotopes in a moderately cooled cryostat is caused by dimers that form in the cold gas and stay behind in the cryostat, so the gas sampled for mass spectrometry is depleted in 40Ar. Above $T_c$, 40Ar reacts with each isotope to make $^{40}\mathrm{Ar}{}^n\mathrm{Ar}$ dimers; the dimers condense or adsorb on the cold walls, and their dissociation at room temperature during analysis makes the remaining gas look enriched in 36Ar and 38Ar. Numerical modeling of dimer formation and trapping reproduces the experimental pattern, with modeled gas-phase Ar$_2$ fractions of 0.0010-0.0016 comparable to values measured in supersonic beams. In the condensation region, the same dimer mechanism operates on top of a 3-8% difference between the heat of condensation and the heat of dissolution of light isotopes in liquid 40Ar, increasing the apparent coefficients. Below the freezing point, preferential freezing out of 40Ar enriches the solid phase in the heavy isotope, with $\alpha_{40}=1.02$, $\alpha_{38}=0.98$ and $\alpha_{36}=0.98$ for the solid.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that the 5-10 minute hold at each temperature gives a gas sample representative of the entire cryostat, although the paper's own relaxation-time analysis says the isotopes are not yet fully mixed at that point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If dimers are retained on cold walls, then a simple cryostat can serve as a stage for light-isotope enrichment, with the gas phase gaining 36Ar and 38Ar at the expense of 40Ar.
The model predicts Ar$_2$ gas fractions near 0.001-0.0016 at 83-152 K, so direct detection of dimers in the cooled gas would confirm the mechanism quantitatively.
In the condensation regime, the 3-8% difference between condensation and dissolution heats means partial condensation enriches the remaining gas in light isotopes, offering a distillation-like separation without a column.
Below the freezing point, solid 40Ar forms first, so collecting the solid phase yields material enriched in 40Ar while the residual gas is enriched in light isotopes.

Reading between the lines

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

One consequence the paper leaves implicit: the apparent separation factor should depend on the cold-surface area and on how long dimers are allowed to settle; experiments varying surface-to-volume ratio could tune or amplify the effect.
The same dimer-retention logic should apply to other noble gases with weak dimer binding, so moderate cooling plus a cold trap may be a general, low-cost isotope-separation strategy.
Because the measured $\alpha_{38}$ reaches 2.33 at 126.2 K, a staged condensation-and-refill cycle could plausibly produce gram-scale samples enriched in 36Ar and 38Ar, a testable engineering extension.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Briefly: this paper reports apparent argon isotope separation factors up to 2.3 in a static cryostat at moderate cooling, far above the equilibrium vapor-pressure effect (<1.004). That number, if real, would be worth chasing. The dimer-retention mechanism is genuinely new, and the DFT cluster heats and literature comparisons are fine. I also credit the authors for stating openly that the 5–10 min holding time means incomplete mixing.

The problem is that the central explanation cannot reproduce the data it is supposed to explain. In Sec. 4.1 the forward and reverse rate constants are set identical for all isotopes and dimers. With that assumption, 38Ar and 36Ar dimerize in exact proportion to their monomer abundances, so the surviving monomer fractions and the resulting apparent separation coefficients are nearly equal. The authors' own Table 4 shows simulated α38,app = 1.3908 and α36,app = 1.3923 at 152.4 K. The measured values are 1.0701 and 1.2807 — a 16% split — and at 126.2 K the ordering reverses, with α38 > α36 by 40%. The model has no isotope-dependent equilibrium constant or zero-point term that could produce this. The Qcond−Qsol adjustment is only invoked in the condensation region and is itself fitted from the ratio of experimental to simulated fractions, so it is not independent evidence. The T > Tc region is unexplained by the model as written.

There are other soft spots. Three temperatures, one sample each, no error bars. The retention of dimers in the cryostat is inferred from their absence at room-temperature MS, not measured directly; the sampling representativeness question is real given the paper's own nonequilibrium caveat. The separation factors at T > Tc rest entirely on that inference.

None of this means the observation is fake. It means the manuscript currently lacks the evidence and the mechanistic coherence needed to support a claim that is two orders of magnitude beyond prior isotope effects. The authors need direct dimer detection or an isotope-dependent rate constant, plus replicates and a sampling protocol that addresses the mixing concern.

Who benefits: specialists in isotope separation and cryogenic kinetics would find the observation worth knowing, but as a preprint, not as a result to rely on. I would not cite it in my own work yet.

Recommendation: if I were the editor, I would send it to a referee rather than desk-reject — the payoff is high enough and the flaw is checkable. But the referee should be told to focus on the isotope-scaling prediction of the dimer model, because as written the paper's own equations contradict its headline result.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports apparent isotope fractionation of natural argon in a cooled stainless-steel cryostat at three temperatures (152.4 K, 126.2 K, and 83.6 K) and interprets it through three mechanisms: dimer formation and retention in the gas phase, a difference between the heat of condensation and dissolution of minor isotopes in the 40Ar condensate, and kinetic freezing in the solid phase. The authors support the dimer interpretation with DFT cluster calculations and a kinetic differential-equation model in which dimerization rate constants are the same for all isotopes. They report simulated and experimental separation coefficients and estimate a Qcond − Qsol difference of 170–520 J/mol from the experimental-to-simulated isotope ratios.

Significance. If the reported fractionation were robust, it would be an interesting, albeit specialized, contribution to isotope-separation and cryogenic gas-handling literature. The paper also provides a transparent kinetic model and explicitly reports all simulation parameters, which is a strength. However, the central claim fails on internal consistency: the proposed dimer-retention mechanism, with isotope-independent rate constants, predicts nearly identical apparent separation coefficients for 38Ar and 36Ar, while the measured values differ by 16–40% with an ordering that reverses between temperatures. This discrepancy is not resolved by any isotope-dependent parameter in the gas-phase region, and the condensation-region explanation relies on a fitted Qcond − Qsol rather than independent prediction. The experimental dataset is also extremely limited—three temperatures, one sample each, no error bars, and a stated nonequilibrium holding time—so the reported α values may not be representative. These issues undermine the paper's central claims and make the conclusions unsupported.

major comments (1)

[§4.1, Eq. (6) and Table 4] The dimer-trapping step in Section 4.1 (Eq. 4) is introduced as an equilibrium between gaseous and 'trapped' dimers with Qtr = Qcond, chosen because Qcond and 2Qcond are deemed 'reasonable lower and upper limits.' No experimental or theoretical evidence is given that dimers are retained specifically by condensation in the cryostat rather than, for example, by adsorption on the copper foil or steel walls, and the retention is not measured directly. This assumption is load-bearing because the entire gas-phase fractionation mechanism depends on the selective removal of dimers; without independent evidence for trapping, the mechanism is ad hoc.

minor comments (1)

[Table 2] The conclusion repeats the abstract's numbers but slightly miscounts: it states α38 = 1.07 for the gas region, while Table 4 reports the simulated apparent value 1.3908 and the experimental value 1.0701; please ensure all reported values are internally consistent between the abstract, conclusion, and tables.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Condensation-region explanation is a fitted input: Qcond−Qsol is estimated from the experimental/simulated fraction ratio and then invoked as the cause of the same discrepancy.

fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, 'Gas and liquid phases' (paragraph after Table 4)]
"The difference Qcond – Qsol ~170-520 J/mol, or ~3-8% Qcond, was estimated from the ratio xi,exp/xi,sim = exp((Qcond−Qsol)/RT), where xi,exp and xi,sim are experimental and simulated atomic fractions of isotopes."

The parameter Qcond−Qsol is not determined independently; it is defined by the ratio of experimental to simulated isotopic fractions (xi,exp/xi,sim). The paper then invokes this same fitted difference as the physical cause of the experimental separation coefficients exceeding the simulated values. Thus the 'explanation' of enhanced fractionation below Tc restates the calibration target: any discrepancy would produce a nonzero Qcond−Qsol, and the observed α values are not predicted from first principles. This is a fitted input presented as the mechanism.

full rationale

The only load-bearing circular step is in Section 4.2. The paper finds that simulated separation coefficients in the condensation region fall below experiment and then estimates Qcond−Qsol from the ratio xi,exp/xi,sim = exp((Qcond−Qsol)/RT). This quantity is then used as the physical explanation for the enhanced fractionation ('due to a difference of 170–520 J/mol'). Because the parameter is defined by the very ratio it is invoked to explain, the condensation-region 'explanation' reduces to a fit; no independent prediction is made. The gas-phase dimer-retention mechanism, by contrast, has independent content: K1, kr, and Qtr=Qcond are taken from literature/DFT, not fitted to the measured α's. However, Table 4 shows the simulation predicts α38,app≈α36,app at all temperatures while the experiment differs by 16–40% and reverses ordering between 152.4 K and 126.2 K; this is a falsification/correctness problem, not a circularity. The paper's self-citations ([18]) are not load-bearing for the isotope claims. Sampling/nonequilibrium concerns (5–10 min holding, incomplete mixing) are experimental-validity risks, not circular derivation. Overall, one fitted-input-called-prediction step in the condensation region; score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several assumed values: a fitted pressure-calibration parameter, a chosen dimer trapping energy, a fitted heat difference, and an unspecified simulation time. None of these are independently measured, and the most important assumption, that dimers are trapped in the cryostat, is inferred from the absence of dimer peaks in room-temperature mass spectra.

free parameters (4)

δhot (hot fraction of cryostat volume) = 0.13
Chosen to minimize deviation between experimental and calibrated pressure in Eq. (1); deviation does not exceed 3% at this value.
Qtr (dimer trapping energy) = Qcond = 6.43 kJ/mol
Set equal to the heat of condensation of argon, with Qcond and 2Qcond as lower and upper limits, but no direct measurement of the actual trapping energy for dimers (Section 4.1, Eq. 4).
Qcond - Qsol (difference between condensation and dissolution heats) = 170-520 J/mol (3-8% Qcond)
Fitted from the ratio x_i,exp / x_i,sim = exp((Qcond - Qsol)/RT) to make the model match experimental separation coefficients in the condensation region (Section 4.2).
Effective holding time in simulations = Not stated
The paper reports experimental holding times of 5-10 minutes but does not specify the time used in the Euler integration that produced the simulated α values in Table 4; this time strongly affects the apparent fractionation.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Ideal gas behavior for the cold and hot parts of the cryostat, with a single effective temperature T* for the warm volume
Used in the pressure calibration Eq. (1); the cryostat has a temperature gradient and the model uses a simplified two-temperature split with fitted δhot.
domain assumption The gas phase is homogeneous and the sampled gas represents the average cryostat gas
Needed to convert measured isotope ratios into separation coefficients; contradicted by the paper's admission of incomplete mixing (Section 2, Fig. 1b).
ad hoc to paper Dimerization thermodynamics from Ref. [30] can be linearly extrapolated to 83-152 K
ΔG(T) and ΔH(T) for Ar2 dimerization are extrapolated linearly to the experimental temperatures without stating the valid range (Section 4.1, Eq. 3).
domain assumption Only 40Ar-containing dimers form in significant amounts; dimers of minor isotopes are negligible
The kinetic model (Eq. 6) includes only 40Ar + nAr reactions, justified by the low abundance of 38Ar and 36Ar.
ad hoc to paper The trapping energy for dimers equals the condensation energy Qcond
Qtr is set to Qcond in Eq. (4) without direct evidence; the paper acknowledges Qcond and 2Qcond as reasonable bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Apparent fractionation of isotopes in moderately cooled argon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NELSUMN5

@misc{pith2026241117111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Apparent fractionation of isotopes in moderately cooled argon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NELSUMN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17111}
}

read the original abstract

The fractionation of isotopes of natural Ar near the condensation (Tc) and freezing point has been studied using mass spectrometry (MS), numerical modeling and density functional theory. The heat of formation of 0.30, 0.52 and 0.70 kJ per Ar atom of the clusters Ar2, Ar3 and Ar4, respectively, shows the tendency of Ar to clusterization. At T > Tc apparent separation coefficients {\alpha}40 = 0.80, {\alpha}38 = 1.07 and {\alpha}36 = 1.28 for 40Ar, 38Ar and 36Ar, respectively, are caused by the formation of dimers, which absence during the MS analysis at room temperature indicates their retention in the cryostat. At T < Tc, fractionation increases ({\alpha}40 = 0.56, {\alpha}38 = 2.24 and {\alpha}36 = 1.67) due to a difference of 170-520 J/mol between the heat of condensation and dissolution of 38Ar and 36Ar in 40Ar condensate. The formation of a solid phase occurs with preferential freezing out of 40Ar ({\alpha}40 = 0.69, {\alpha}38 = 1.57 and {\alpha}36 = 1.42) for kinetic reasons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17111 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Simulated fractionation kinetics of (a, c) major and (b, d) minor isotopes, (e) separation coefficients and (f) αtot/αapp ratio at T = 152.4 K in comparison with the experiment (Eq. 6 and Eq. 7) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Dong, S.J

W. Dong, S.J. Moon, J.K. Kelleher, G. Stephanopoulos. Dissecting mammalian cell metabolism through 13C- and 2H‑isotope tracing: interpretations at the molecular and systems levels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59 (2020) 2593-2610

work page 2020
[2]

Yancheshmeh, H.R

M.S. Yancheshmeh, H.R. Radfarnia, M.C. Iliuta. High temperature CO2 sorbents and their application for hydrogen production by sorption enhanced steam reforming process. Chem. Eng. J. 283 (2016) 420-444

work page 2016
[3]

Murray, K.E

R.L. Murray, K.E. Holbert. Nuclear Energy, eighth ed., Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Shere, A.K

L. Shere, A.K. Hill, T.J. Mays, R. Lawless, R. Brown, S.P. Perera. The next generation of low tritium hydrogen isotope separation technologies for future fusion power plants. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 55 (2023) 319-338

work page 2023
[5]

Bigeleisen

J. Bigeleisen. Isotope separation practice. In: Isotope effects in chemical processes, Advances in chemistry, Vol. 89; Spindel W., Ed.; ACS: Washington, 1969. 9

work page 1969
[6]

Van Hook, Isotope Separation

W.A. Van Hook, Isotope Separation. In: Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry, second ed.; Vértes, A.; Nagy, S.; Klencsár, Z.; Lovas, R. Z; Rösch, F., Eds.; Springer: London, 2011

work page 2011
[7]

Atkins, J

P. Atkins, J. de Paula. Physical Chemistry, 9th ed.; W. H. Freeman: New York, 2010

work page 2010
[8]

Boato, G

G. Boato, G. Casanova, M.E. Vallauri. Vapour Pressure of Isotopic Liquids. II – Ne and A above Boiling-Point. Nuovo Cimento 16 (1960) 505-519

work page 1960

Show all 31 references

[9]

Boato, G

G. Boato, G. Scoles, M.E. Vallauri. Vapour Pressure of Isotopic Liquids. I. – A, N2, O2 Below Boiling-point. Nuovo Cimento 14 (1959) 735-747

1959
[10]

M.W. Lee, S. Fuks, J. Bigeleisen. Vapor Pressures of 36Ar and 40Ar. Intermolecular forces in solid and liquid argon. J. Chem. Phys. 53 (1970) 4066-4076

1970
[11]

Fieschi, N

R. Fieschi, N. Terzi. Quantum effects in the liquid state by means of a phenomenological cell model: the vapor pressure ratio of Ne and Ar isotopes. Physica 27 (1961) 453-464

1961
[12]

K. Noor, H. Marttila, J. M. Welker, K.-R. Mustonen, B. Kløve, P. Ala-aho. Snow sampling strategy can bias estimation of meltwater fractions in isotope hydrograph separation. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam, Neth.) 627 (2023) 130429

2023
[13]

I.F. Shlegel. Water treatment method and system. Russian Patent RU2496720C2, 2012

2012
[14]

Haynes (Ed.), CRC Handbook of chemistry and physics, 97th Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2016-2017

W.M. Haynes (Ed.), CRC Handbook of chemistry and physics, 97th Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2016-2017

2016
[15]

Preston-Thomas

H. Preston-Thomas. The international temperature scale of 1990. Metrologia 27 (1990) 3-10

1990
[16]

Godfried, I.F

H.P. Godfried, I.F. Silvera. Raman studies of argon dimers in a supersonic expansion. II. Kinetics of dimer formation. Phys. Rev. A 27 (1983) 3019-3030

1983
[17]

Milne, F.T

T.A. Milne, F.T. Greene. Mass spectrometric observation of argon clusters in nozzle beams. I. General behavior and equilibrium dimer concentrations. J. Chem. Phys. 47 (1967) 4095-4101

1967
[18]

Cholach, D

A. Cholach, D. Yakovin. Removal of CF4 from NF3 at the phase interface. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 131 (2022) 104178

2022
[19]

Hirschfelder, C.F

J. Hirschfelder, C.F. Curtiss, R.B. Bird, Molecular theory of gases and liquids, New York, Wiley, 1954

1954
[20]

De Paz, B

M. De Paz, B. Turi, M.L. Klein. New self diffusion measurements in argon gas. Physica 36 (1967) 127-135

1967
[21]

Hirschfelder, C.F

J. Hirschfelder, C.F. Curtiss, R.B. Bird. Molecular theory of gases and liquids; Wiley: New York, 1954

1954
[22]

Giannozzi, S

P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G.L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Mau...

2009
[23]

Perdew, A

J. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. Csonka, O. Vydrov, G. Scuseria, L. Constantin, X. Zhou, K. Burke. Restoring the density-gradient expansion for exchange in solids and surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 136406

2008
[24]

Methfessel, A.T

M. Methfessel, A.T. Paxton. High-precision sampling for Brillouin-zone integration in metals. Phys. Rev. B 40 (1989) 3616

1989
[25]

Monkhorst, J.D

H.J. Monkhorst, J.D. Pack. Special points for Brillouin-zone integrations. Phys. Rev. B 13 (1976) 5188

1976
[26]

Butcher, Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2008

J.C. Butcher, Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2008

2008
[27]

Herman, P.E

P.R. Herman, P.E. LaRocque, B.P. Stoicheff. Vacuum ultraviolet laser spectroscopy. V. Rovibronic spectra of Ar2 and constants of the ground and excited states. J. Chem. Phys. 89 (1988) 4535-4549

1988
[28]

Patkowski, G

K. Patkowski, G. Murdachaew, C.-M. Fou, K. Szalewicz. Accurate ab initio potential for argon dimer including highly repulsive region. Molecular Physics 103 (2005) 2031-2045

2005
[29]

Audi, G.; Bersillon, O.; Blachot J.; Wapstra, A. H. The NUBASE evaluation of nuclear and decay properties. Nucl. Phys. A 729 (2003) 3-128

2003
[30]

A.M. Halpern. Equilibrium state thermodynamic properties of rare gas dimers and trimers obtained from equations of state and statistical thermodynamics: Application to neon, argon, krypton and xenon. J. Chem. Thermodynamics 162 (2021) 106558

2021
[31]

Colbourn, A.E

E.A. Colbourn, A.E. Douglas. The spectrum and ground state potential curve of Ar2. J. Chem. Phys. 65 (1976) 1741-1745. 11 Table 1. The optimized Ar-Ar distance (d) and the heat of formation (Qcl) for Arn clusters. Cluster d (Å) Qcl (kJ/mol) Qcl/n (kJ/mol) Qcl/Qcond (%) Ar2 3.9...

1976

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Dong, S.J

W. Dong, S.J. Moon, J.K. Kelleher, G. Stephanopoulos. Dissecting mammalian cell metabolism through 13C- and 2H‑isotope tracing: interpretations at the molecular and systems levels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59 (2020) 2593-2610

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Yancheshmeh, H.R

M.S. Yancheshmeh, H.R. Radfarnia, M.C. Iliuta. High temperature CO2 sorbents and their application for hydrogen production by sorption enhanced steam reforming process. Chem. Eng. J. 283 (2016) 420-444

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Murray, K.E

R.L. Murray, K.E. Holbert. Nuclear Energy, eighth ed., Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Shere, A.K

L. Shere, A.K. Hill, T.J. Mays, R. Lawless, R. Brown, S.P. Perera. The next generation of low tritium hydrogen isotope separation technologies for future fusion power plants. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 55 (2023) 319-338

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Bigeleisen

J. Bigeleisen. Isotope separation practice. In: Isotope effects in chemical processes, Advances in chemistry, Vol. 89; Spindel W., Ed.; ACS: Washington, 1969. 9

work page 1969

[6] [6]

Van Hook, Isotope Separation

W.A. Van Hook, Isotope Separation. In: Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry, second ed.; Vértes, A.; Nagy, S.; Klencsár, Z.; Lovas, R. Z; Rösch, F., Eds.; Springer: London, 2011

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Atkins, J

P. Atkins, J. de Paula. Physical Chemistry, 9th ed.; W. H. Freeman: New York, 2010

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Boato, G

G. Boato, G. Casanova, M.E. Vallauri. Vapour Pressure of Isotopic Liquids. II – Ne and A above Boiling-Point. Nuovo Cimento 16 (1960) 505-519

work page 1960