Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Adsorption of molecular hydrogen on honeycomb ZnO monolayers: A quantum density-functional theory perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Using quantum liquid density-functional theory, this paper predicts that hydrogen physisorbs on honeycomb ZnO monolayers with an isosteric heat of about 3.2 kJ/mol in the low-density limit, with storage capacities intermediate between…

desk verdict Competent QLDFT application to ZnO monolayers, but a large unexplained gap between the classical well depth and the reported isosteric heat undercuts the quantitative claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17258 v1 pith:EU2U73TC submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.chem-ph

Aliezer Martinez-Mesa , Llinersy Uranga-Pinna , Nadine Halberstadt , Sergey N. Yurchenko , Thomas Heine , Gotthard Seifert This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph
keywords hydrogenstoragephysisorptionzincoxidemonolayerquantumliquiddensityfunctionaltheoryisostericheatofadsorptionisothermtwo-dimensionalmaterialsMOF-5
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 predicts how much molecular hydrogen a single honeycomb layer of zinc oxide can absorb under realistic storage conditions, using a quantum version of liquid density-functional theory. It finds that the isosteric heat of adsorption is about 3.2 kJ/mol in the low-coverage limit, placing ZnO between graphene and the porous framework MOF-5 in volumetric uptake. The calculations also show that the ZnO surface confines hydrogen more tightly in the plane than graphene does, with adsorbed molecules forming a hexagonal pattern over zinc, oxygen, and bridge sites. If correct, these numbers provide a quantitative benchmark for a structural intermediate between carbon nanosheets and porous frameworks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Quantum Liquid Density Functional Theory (QLDFT) effective single-particle Hamiltonian, in which each H2 molecule moves in the mean field of the substrate and its neighbours, with exchange-correlation derived from the experimental hydrogen equation of state. H2 is treated as a point particle, the H2–ZnO interaction is built from atomistic van der Waals parameters combined with geometric combining rules, and the H2–H2 interaction is an exponential pair potential fitted to ab initio results. Adsorption densities are computed self-consistently and fitted to a three-parameter isotherm with an asymmetric site-energy distribution, from which the isosteric heat is extracted via the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

What would settle it

Measure the isosteric heat of H2 adsorption on a free-standing honeycomb ZnO monolayer at low coverage (for example, by adsorption microcalorimetry or by variable-temperature adsorption isotherms) and compare it with the predicted 3.2 kJ/mol; a value clearly outside the 2.5 to 4.0 kJ/mol range would falsify the point-particle potential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within QLDFT, the adsorption enthalpy of H2 on pristine honeycomb ZnO approaches roughly 3.2 kJ/mol at zero coverage, and the volumetric uptake at liquid-nitrogen temperature closely mirrors that of MOF-5, while the gravimetric capacity is lower because of the extra mass of zinc and oxygen. The adsorbed density is structured perpendicular to the surface and, unlike on graphene, shows partially resolved peaks above the lattice atoms and bridge sites. The isosteric heat depends smoothly on uptake below 100 K but falls roughly linearly at room temperature and above, indicating that ZnO is a viable low-temperature physisorption medium but not a room-temperature storage material.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on treating H2 as a point particle in a van der Waals potential fitted to the ZnO surface, so if that interaction misses the true anisotropy of the polar surface or the zero-point motion of the molecule in the narrow well, the predicted isotherms and heats of adsorption would shift substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Volumetric hydrogen uptake on a ZnO monolayer at 77 K tracks MOF-5, but gravimetric capacity is lower; the peak excess gravimetric capacity is 3.9% at 25 bar and 77 K.
  • At the operating conditions targeted for automotive hydrogen storage (233 K, 12 bar), the ZnO sheet stores less than 1% by weight, so it is not a room-temperature hydrogen storage material.
  • Below 100 K the isosteric heat stays within 30% of its zero-coverage value over the whole adsorbate density range, whereas above 100 K it drops roughly linearly with temperature.
  • The density distribution shows a hexagonal pattern of adsorption sites with peaks above zinc, oxygen, and bridge sites, demonstrating tighter lateral confinement than on graphene.
  • Adsorbed molecules occupy the main sites first, and raising pressure by a factor of five from 28 bar to 140 bar increases the total uptake by only 49% while the local peak density rises by just 12%.
  • The volumetric hydrogen storage capacity of ZnO monolayers at liquid-nitrogen temperature is similar to that of MOF-5, suggesting that such 2D sheets can serve as simplified models for studying hydrogen uptake in more complex nanoporous materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension of this work would be to transfer the same QLDFT machinery to other polar two-dimensional oxides, such as MgO or Al2O3 monolayers, to rank their low-temperature hydrogen uptake without expensive path-integral simulations.
  • Because the 77 K volumetric isotherms are close to MOF-5, a ZnO monolayer could serve as a computational surrogate for screening MOF-like adsorption behaviour in cases where electronic-structure calculations on the full framework are too costly.
  • The strong temperature dependence of the isosteric heat above 100 K is an experimentally testable signature: adsorption microcalorimetry on free-standing ZnO monolayers should find that the binding enthalpy falls roughly linearly with temperature, not just with coverage.
  • The point-particle approximation could be tested by path-integral or other explicitly quantum calculations that resolve the zero-point motion of H2 normal to the surface; if the resulting well depth changes by more than a few tenths of a kJ/mol, the OPLS-based potential would need revision.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies Quantum Liquid Density Functional Theory (QLDFT) to compute molecular hydrogen adsorption on honeycomb ZnO monolayers. The H2-ZnO interaction is modeled with an OPLS Lennard-Jones potential using geometric combining rules, giving a classical binding energy of 13.5 kJ/mol, which is compared with a DFT value of 13.2 kJ/mol. Adsorption isotherms are computed for temperatures from 77 K to 450 K and pressures up to 180 bar, fitted to a Toth isotherm, and used to derive isosteric heats of adsorption, volumetric and gravimetric storage capacities, and spatial density profiles. The central quantitative claims are a low-density isosteric heat of about 3.2 kJ/mol, storage capacities intermediate between graphene and MOF-5, and tighter lateral confinement of adsorbed H2 on ZnO than on graphene.

Significance. If the calculations are internally consistent, the paper would provide a useful benchmark for quantum effects in H2 physisorption on a polar two-dimensional material and a bridge between graphene-like and MOF-5 model systems. The QLDFT implementation is described with unusual numerical detail (grid spacing, expansion orders, damping, cutoffs), the external potential is not fitted to the target adsorption data, and the isotherm fits are reported with very high R2 values. These are genuine strengths that make the calculations reproducible in principle. However, as detailed below, the central Qst value appears inconsistent with the H2-ZnO external potential used, and this must be resolved before the quantitative storage predictions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [III and IV.A] The low-density isosteric heat is inconsistent with the external potential used in the QLDFT calculation. Section III reports an OPLS-based H2-ZnO binding energy of 13.5 kJ/mol, validated against a DFT value of 13.2 kJ/mol. For a single particle in an external potential vext(r), the Henry constant is proportional to the volume integral of exp[-beta vext(r)], so at zero coverage Qst should be close to the well depth, i.e., about 13 kJ/mol after typical zero-point and thermal corrections of a few kJ/mol, not 3.2 kJ/mol. The low-coverage van't Hoff slope reported in Fig. 5a (3.41 kJ/mol) and the Qst curves in Fig. 4 show that the simulated isotherms behave as if the effective well depth were only about 3.2-3.4 kJ/mol. This roughly 10 kJ/mol discrepancy is not explained by zero-point motion (usually 1-3 kJ/mol for H2 physisorption), and the manuscript does not address it. The authors should reconcile the reported binding energy with the Henry constants implied by their isotherms, or identify and correct the error in the vext implementation (periodic summation, combining rules, or chemical-potential reference).
  2. [IV.A and Eq. (14)] The extraction of Qst relies entirely on the Toth fit, including the assumed linear temperature dependence of the heterogeneity parameter t. Because the fitted affinity parameter b(T) yields a low-coverage Qst of 3.41 kJ/mol, the Toth model is the only route connecting the QLDFT isotherms to the quoted 3.2 kJ/mol value. The authors should verify the Toth-based Henry constant against a direct QLDFT calculation at low pressure, or against the single-particle partition function of the reported vext. If the direct Henry constant has a van't Hoff slope near 13.5 kJ/mol, the Toth fit is masking the true thermodynamics; if it is near 3.4 kJ/mol, the external potential actually used is not the 13.5 kJ/mol potential described in Section III. Either way, a direct low-density check is needed before Fig. 4 and the abstract's 3.2 kJ/mol value can be considered reliable.
  3. [III and IV.B] The point-particle and isotropic description of H2, combined with geometric combining rules, is validated only against the classical well depth at the binding site. The paper's claim that ZnO imposes tighter lateral confinement than graphene depends on the corrugation of vext, but no comparison of the OPLS corrugation with DFT is provided. Quantifying the sensitivity of the density profiles and Qst to the anisotropy of the ZnO surface and to the H2 orientation would strengthen the central microscopic claim; in its absence, the lateral-confinement conclusion rests on an untested part of the potential.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section II.B] The words 'enthalphies' and 'enthalphy' should be 'enthalpies' and 'enthalpy'.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption gives p(DOE target)=90 bar, while the DoE target pressure is stated as 12 bar elsewhere in the text; the caption likely should read p=90 bar.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The symbol t is used both for the heterogeneity parameter and in the subscript in the Toth model; define the subscript or rename one quantity to avoid confusion.
  4. [References] Reference [70] is cited as NanoLett. 1, 1 (2007); the volume and page numbers should be checked.
  5. [IV.A] The term 'LIE-1 level of theory' is used without definition in this paper; please define it explicitly or make the reference to [44] more specific.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adsorption isotherms, capacities, and isosteric heats are computed from literature force fields and empirical bulk-H2 data, with the Toth fit applied as a transparent post-processing step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The external H2-ZnO potential is taken from the OPLS literature parameters (Jorgensen et al., with combining rules and sigma/epsilon from Yang and Zhong) and is validated once against an independent DFT binding energy (13.5 vs 13.2 kJ/mol); it is not fitted to any adsorption isotherm or Qst target. The H2-H2 interaction is a Morse fit to ab initio data, and the QLDFT exchange-correlation and chemical potential are constructed from the empirical homogeneous-fluid equation of state, none of which encodes the ZnO adsorption result. The isosteric heat is obtained by fitting the computed isotherms to a Toth model and applying the Clausius-Clapeyron relation; this is a standard data-reduction step, and the abstract explicitly states that the adsorption enthalpies are obtained by fitting the computed densities. No fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. The methodological self-citations to prior QLDFT work (refs. 34, 44, 48) are normal method citations: the cited formalism has stated assumptions and was previously tested on other adsorbents, so the present result is not forced by self-citation. The apparent gap between the OPLS classical well depth (13.5 kJ/mol) and the low-density Qst (about 3.2 kJ/mol) is a physical/consistency concern about quantum confinement effects and the Toth reduction, not a circularity: the paper nowhere defines Qst as the well depth nor fits the potential to Qst. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its predictions rest on established QLDFT machinery, literature force-field parameters, and a Toth isotherm fit. The most consequential choices are the OPLS-based external potential and the fitted Toth parameters used to extract Qst.

free parameters (5)
  • Toth saturation capacity nsat(T) = temperature-dependent, not tabulated
    Fitted to QLDFT-computed isotherms at each temperature; used in Eq. (14) to derive Qst.
  • Toth affinity constant b(T) = shown in Fig. 5a, roughly 10^-3 to 10^-2 bar^-1
    Fitted to QLDFT isotherms; its van't Hoff slope gives Qst^(vtH)=3.41 kJ/mol.
  • Toth heterogeneity parameter t(T), with t0 and kappa = t roughly 0.6 to 1.0 across 77-450 K (Fig. 5b)
    Assumed linear in T, t=t0+kappa*T, fitted to the temperature-dependent heterogeneity; enters Qst expression in Eq. (14).
  • OPLS Lennard-Jones parameters epsilon and sigma for Zn, O, H2 = from refs. [57,58], not tabulated
    Chosen from literature, not fitted here, but the central adsorption results depend on these values; included because the central claim rests on them.
  • Morse H2-H2 parameters D, re, alpha = D=0.291 kJ/mol, re=3.511 A, alpha=1.592 A^-1
    Fitted to ab initio intermolecular potential in ref. [59]; affects adsorbed fluid at high densities.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption QLDFT with LDA exchange-correlation derived from the homogeneous H2 fluid EOS accurately describes inhomogeneous confined hydrogen at these conditions (77-450 K, up to 180 bar).
    The method is from ref. [44] and previous applications; no direct validation for ZnO adsorption.
  • domain assumption The OPLS force field with geometric combining rules gives a reliable H2-ZnO interaction potential; the point-particle approximation for H2 is adequate.
    Section III: 'The choice of the OPLS force field is based on the assumption that Lennard-Jones functions provide a reasonable description...'
  • ad hoc to paper The Toth isotherm model with a linear temperature dependence for t captures the true QLDFT isotherms and is suitable for extracting Qst.
    Section II.B: t=t0+kappa*T 'fits the data quite well'; no independent thermodynamic derivation.
  • standard math The empirical Leachman equation of state for bulk normal H2 is valid up to 2 GPa and provides accurate chemical potentials for the external gas.
    Used for mu in Eq. (16); from refs. [39,47].
  • domain assumption Series truncation at kmax=5 and mmax=50 and the 42 kJ/mol potential cutoff yield converged QLDFT results.
    Section III states these were sufficient, but no explicit convergence data are shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adsorption of molecular hydrogen on honeycomb ZnO monolayers: A quantum density-functional theory perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EU2U73TC

@misc{pith2026241117258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adsorption of molecular hydrogen on honeycomb ZnO monolayers: A quantum density-functional theory perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EU2U73TC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17258}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the adsorption of molecular hydrogen on pristine zinc oxide (ZnO) platelets. The volumetric and gravimetric hydrogen storage capacities of the ZnO monolayers are evaluated in a broad range of thermodynamic conditions (i.e., for temperatures in the range 77 K < T < 450 K, and for external gas pressures up to 200 bar). The thermodynamic properties and the microscopic spatial distribution of the adsorbed hydrogen fluid are assessed within the density functional theory of liquids for quantum fluids at finite temperature (QLDFT), and the adsorption enthalphies are obtained by fitting the computed adsorption densities to the Toth model isotherm. Compared to graphene platelets, the ZnO sheets impose a rather tighter confinement to the motion of the hydrogen molecules parallel to the surface. The isosteric heat of adsorption approaches 3.2 kJ/mol in the low density regime. This quantity shows a fairly smooth dependence on the hydrogen uptake for temperatures below 100 K, while it is shown to depend quite sensitively on the adsorbate density above this temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Atomic positions in the ZnO monolayer. (b) H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Volumetric storage capacity: Computed adsorption isothe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: a) Overall gravimetric capacity, and b) excess gravimetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Isosteric heat of adsorption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: a) Henry constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Spatial distribution of hydrogen molecules in the vicinity of a Z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Density distribution of hydrogen molecules adsorbed on a Zn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Effective potential (left panels) and density distribution (r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_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]

    N. Baig, I. Kammakakam, W. Falath, Mater. Adv. 2, 1821 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    J. Shen, G. Liu, Y. Han, W. Jin, Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 294 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets- onboard-hydrogen-storage-light-duty-vehicles, accessed October 9th, 2023

    U.S. Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets- onboard-hydrogen-storage-light-duty-vehicles, accessed October 9th, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    K. S. Novoselov, et al., Science 306, 666 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Mater. 6, 183 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    M. Zeng, Y. Xiao, J. Liu, K. Yang, L. Fu, Chem. Rev. 118, 6236 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Topsakal, S

    M. Topsakal, S. Cahangirov, E. Bekaroglu, S. Ciraci, Phy s. Rev. B 80, 235119 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    H. Si, L. J. Peng, J. R. Morris, B. C. Pan, J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 9053 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Z.C. Tu, J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci. 7, 1182 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Claeyssens, C

    F. Claeyssens, C. L. Freeman, N. L. Allan, Y. Sun, M. N. R. Ashfold, J. Mater. Chem. 15, 139 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    C. L. Freeman, F. Claeyssens, N. L. Allan, J. H. Harding, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 066102 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Behera, G

    H. Behera, G. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Lett. A 376, 3287 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    S. J. Young, L. T. Lai, Microelectron. Eng. 148, 40 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    A. S. Dahiya et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 033105 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    M. A. Nazir, Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process. 142, 106465 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Sahoo et al., Mater

    T. Sahoo et al., Mater. Res. Bull. 75, 134 (2016) 25

    2016

  9. [17]

    Zhang et al., Chemosensors 10, 307 (2022)

    J. Zhang et al., Chemosensors 10, 307 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    S. Y. Wakhare, M. D. Deshpande, Bull. Mater. Sci. 42, 206 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Li et al., ACS Appl

    Y. Li et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 11711 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    M. A. Borysiewicz, Crystals 9, 505 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    H. Xu, W. Fan, A. L. Rosa, R. Q. Zhang, T. Frauenheim, Phys . Rev. B 79, 073402 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    M. M. Balmeo, Surf. Sci. 703, 121726 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Zhang, L

    M. Zhang, L. Qia, J. Appl. Phys. 124, 155302 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Chen et al., RSC Adv

    L. Chen et al., RSC Adv. 9, 21831 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    D. Sun, C. Tan, X. Tian, Y. Huang, Materials 10, 703 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Qu et al., Appl

    Y. Qu et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 508, 145202 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Zhang et al., ACS Omega 2, 1192 (2017)

    M. Zhang et al., ACS Omega 2, 1192 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Tan et al., Superlattices Microstruct

    C. Tan et al., Superlattices Microstruct. 98, 416 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Qin et al., Comput

    G. Qin et al., Comput. Mater. Sci. 81, 259 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Dutta et al., Prog

    S. Dutta et al., Prog. Mater. Sci. 54, 89 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Hentsche, H

    M. Hentsche, H. Herman, D. Lindackers, G. Seifert, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32, 1530 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    S. S. Han, H. S. Kim, K. S. Han et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 416, 137 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Kadono, H

    K. Kadono, H. Kajiura, M. Shiraishi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 3392 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    Mart ´ ınez-Mesa, S

    A. Mart ´ ınez-Mesa, S. N. Yurchenko, S. Patchkovskii, T. Heine, and G. Seifert, J. Chem. Phys. 135, 214701 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Wahiduzzaman, C

    M. Wahiduzzaman, C. F. J. Walther, T. Heine, J. Chem. Phy s. 141, 064708 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Kowalczyk, A

    P. Kowalczyk, A. P. Terzyk, P. A. Gauden, S. Furmaniak, K . Kaneko, T. F. Miller, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6, 3367 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Kagita, T

    H. Kagita, T. Ohba, T. Fujimori, H. Tanaka, K. Hata, S. Ta ira, H. Kanoh, D. Minami, Y. Hattori, T. Itoh, H. Masu, M. Endo, K. Kaneko, J. Phys. Chem. C 116, 20918 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Niimura, T

    S. Niimura, T. Fujimori, D. Minami, Y. Hattori, L. Abram s, D. Corbin, K. Hata, K. Kaneko, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 18483 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    J. W. Leachman, R. T Jacobsen, S. G. Penoncello, E. W. Lem mon, J. Phys. Ref. Data 38, 721 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Meyer, F

    H.-D. Meyer, F. Gatti, G. A. Worth (Eds), Multidimensio nal Quantum Dynamics: MCTDH Theory and Applications (Wiley-VCH, 2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Marquardt, M

    R. Marquardt, M. Quack (Eds), Molecular Spectroscopy a nd Quantum Dynamics (Elsevier, 26 2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    V. I. Kalikmanov, Statistical Physics of Fluids: Basic Concepts and Applications (Springer- Verlag, 2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Shiga, Path Integral Simulations, in Reference Modu le in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering (Elsevier, 2018)

    M. Shiga, Path Integral Simulations, in Reference Modu le in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering (Elsevier, 2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Patchkovskii, and T

    S. Patchkovskii, and T. Heine, Phys. Rev. E 80, 031603 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Patchkovskii, and T

    S. Patchkovskii, and T. Heine, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 9, 2697 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Patchkovskii, J

    S. Patchkovskii, J. S. Tse, S. N. Yurchenko, L. Zhechkov , T. Heine, and G. Seifert, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 10439 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    R. L. Mills, D. H. Liebenberg, J. C. Bronson, and L. C. Sch midt, J. Chem. Phys. 66, 3076 (1977)

    1977

  40. [48]

    Mart ´ ınez-Mesa, L

    A. Mart ´ ınez-Mesa, L. Zhechkov, S. N. Yurchenko, T. Heine, G. Seifert, and J. Rubayo-Soneira, J. Phys. Chem. C 116, 19543 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    F. R. Siperstein, C. Avenda˜ no, J. J. Ortiz, A. Gil-Vill egas, AIChE J. 67, 17186 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Toth, Acta Chim

    J. Toth, Acta Chim. Acad. Sci. Hung. 69, 311 (1971)

    1971

  43. [51]

    Vasanth Kumar, M

    K. Vasanth Kumar, M. Monteiro de Castro, M. Martinez-Es candell, M. Molina-Sabio, F. Rodriguez-Reinoso, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 5753 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Purewal, D

    J. Purewal, D. Liu, A. Sudik, M. Veenstra, J. Yang, S. Mau rer, U. M¨ uller, D.J. Siegel, J. Phys. Chem. C 116, 20199 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    A. F. Kloutse, R. Zacharia, D. Cossement, R. Chahine, R. Balderas-Xicoht´ encatl, H. Oh, B. Streppel, M. Schlichtenmayer, M. Hirscher, Appl. Phys. A 121, 1417 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Chilev, M

    C. Chilev, M. Dicko, P. Langlois, F. Lamari, Metals 12, 1698 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    H. M. F. Freundlich, Z. Phys. Chem. 57, 385 (1906)

    1906

  48. [56]

    R. Sips, J. Chem. Phys. 16, 490 (1948)

    1948

  49. [57]

    W. L. Jorgensen, D. S. Maxwell, J. Tirado-Rives, J. Am. C hem. Soc. 118, 11225 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Q. Yang, C. Zhong, J. Phys. Chem. B 109, 11862 (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    Diep and J.K

    P. Diep and J.K. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 3480 (2000)

    2000

  52. [60]

    S. S. Kaye, A. Dailly, O. M. Yaghi, and J. R. Long, J. Am. Ch em. Soc. 129, 14176 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    W. Zhou, H. Wu, M. Hartman, and T. Yildirim, J. Phys. Chem . C 111, 16131 (2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    A. G. Wong-Foy, A. J. Matzger, and O. M. Yaghi, J. Am. Chem . Soc. 128, 3494 (2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    Panella, M

    B. Panella, M. Hirscher, H. P¨ utter, and U. M¨ uller, Adv . Funct. Mater. 16, 520 (2006) 27

    2006

  56. [64]

    Dailly, J

    A. Dailly, J. J. Vajo, and C. C. Ahn, J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 1099 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    Rubeˇ s, M

    M. Rubeˇ s, M. Trachta, E. Koudelkov´ a, R. Bul´ anek, J. Klimeˇ s, P. Nachtigall, O. Bludsk´ y, J. Phys. Chem. C 122, 26088 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    A. S. Hyla, H. Fang, S. E. Boulfelfel, G. Muraro, C. Paur, K. Strohmaier, P. I. Ravikovitch, D. S. Sholl, J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 20405 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    D. W. Siderius, H. W. Hatch, V. K. Shen, J. Phys. Chem. B 126, 7999 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Martinez-Mesa, and G

    A. Martinez-Mesa, and G. Seifert, Rev. Cub. Fis. 31, 32 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Heine, L

    T. Heine, L. Zhechkov and G. Seifert, Phys. Chem. Chem. P hys. 6, 980 (2004)

    2004

  62. [70]

    A. Kuc, L. Zhechkov, S. Patchkovskii, G. Seifert, and T. Heine, NanoLett. 1, 1 (2007) 28

    2007

Pith tools

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