Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Dynamics of reactive oxygen species produced by the COST microplasma jet

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · 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 absolute flow-cell densities of O2(a1Δg) and O2(b1Σg+) from a COST plasma jet and shows that both a plug-flow model and a 2D fluid model reproduce the measurements within an order of magnitude, though both overestimate…

desk verdict First flow-cell O2(a1Δg) density data for the COST jet, but unquantified calibration factors and an unconverged 2D simulation make the absolute benchmark provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10204 v1 pith:BHHZ5LTK submitted 2025-05-15 physics.plasm-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sascha Chur , Robin Minke , Youfan He , Máté Vass , Thomas Mussenbrock , Ralf Peter Brinkmann , Efe Kemaneci , Lars Schücke
show 4 more authors
Volker Schulz-von der Gathen Andrew R. Gibson Marc Böke Judith Golda
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords COSTplasmajetsingletoxygenO2(a1Δg)O2(b1Σg+)ozonequenchingflowcellopticalemissionspectroscopyabsorption
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 aims to establish absolute densities of the two lowest excited states of molecular oxygen, O2(a1Δg) and O2(b1Σg+), produced by the COST atmospheric pressure plasma jet in a helium–oxygen mixture, and to test whether two standard simulation approaches can reproduce them. Because O2(a1Δg) emits weakly and is difficult to observe in the plasma, the authors collect the effluent in a quartz flow cell and derive a volume-averaged density from 1270 nm emission, using measured ozone densities to correct for quenching. They find that both a fast pseudo-1D plug-flow model and a full 2D fluid model give densities within the same order of magnitude as the measurements, with the 2D model reproducing the experimental trends across power, flow, and admixture variations. The main discrepancy is ozone: both models overestimate its density by roughly a factor of three, likely because effluent-region ozone destruction, especially wall losses, is underrepresented in the reaction schemes. If correct, this provides a flow-cell-based benchmark for O2(a1Δg) in the COST jet and pinpoints where the simulation chemistry needs refinement.

What carries the argument

The key experimental object is the quartz flow cell: a 79 mm long, 14 mm diameter chamber attached to the jet nozzle that enlarges the observable emission volume so that the weak 1270 nm transition of O2(a1Δg) becomes detectable. The absolute density is recovered from an emission-intensity equation $n_{\mathrm{O}_2(\mathrm{a}^1\Delta_{\mathrm g})}= I\cdot C\cdot \frac{1}{A_{ik}Q}\cdot\frac{\lambda}{hc}\cdot\frac{1}{V}\cdot\frac{1}{f(d\Omega)g}$, where $C$ is the energy-intensity calibration constant from a laser diode, $Q=A_{ik}/(A_{ik}+q)$ is the photon yield with $q=k_{\mathrm{O}_3} n_{\mathrm{O}_3}$ the ozone-dominated quenching rate, and $f(d\Omega)g$ are the geometric and loss factors for the optical path. The computational counterparts are a pseudo-1D plug-flow model that co-moves a reacting volume along the gas streamline and a 2D fluid simulation that resolves the non-uniform flow, including vortices in the flow cell. These two routes, a volume-averaged plug-flow prediction and a spatially resolved fluid prediction, are what the experiment is compared against.

What would settle it

Flow a known concentration of O2(a1Δg) from an independent source through the same flow cell and compare the density recovered from Eq. (2) with the known value; a systematic offset would reveal the unmeasured f(dΩ)g calibration. Alternatively, measure the geometric factor directly by scanning an isotropic 1270 nm point source along the cell volume.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a set of absolute density measurements for O2(a1Δg) and O2(b1Σg+) in the COST jet, obtained by combining 1270 nm emission spectroscopy in a flow cell with ozone absorption measurements at 254 nm. The measured O2(a1Δg) density increases with plasma power and oxygen admixture and peaks near 1.5 slm helium flow. The O2(b1Σg+) density profiles along the discharge channel are well reproduced by the plug-flow simulation at 0.1–0.3% O2 admixture, but at higher admixtures the simulation overpredicts the consumption of O2(b1Σg+) toward the jet exit, which the authors attribute to the overestimated ozone density. Both simulations remain within a factor of about three of the measured ozone densities, with the 2D fluid simulation matching the shape of the power and admixture dependencies better than the plug-flow model. The paper concludes that the plasma-chemistry schemes are largely validated, but that effluent-region wall reactions and certain rate coefficients, especially those involving ozone, need refinement.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute O2(a1Δg) density rests on an energy-intensity calibration constant multiplied by a geometric factor f(dΩ) and a loss factor g that are not measured or described; if those are wrong, every reported singlet-oxygen density shifts by the same factor and the comparison to simulations changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The plug-flow model can serve as a fast screening tool for effluent densities even in flow-cell geometries, as long as volume-averaged comparisons are acceptable.
  • The 2D fluid model is the better choice when spatial inhomogeneity inside the effluent matters, but users must run it long enough for long-lived species like ozone to homogenize before comparing to volume-averaged measurements.
  • The consistent factor-of-three ozone overestimation indicates that ozone wall losses or effluent-region rate coefficients are missing or mis-set in both reaction schemes; correcting them should improve agreement for all ozone-coupled species.
  • O2(b1Σg+) emission along the discharge channel offers a sensitive, easily measured indicator of ozone density, because the overestimated ozone shows up directly as an overestimated consumption rate of O2(b1Σg+).
  • Flow-cell designs that suppress vortices would reduce the required simulation time and narrow the gap between plug-flow and fluid-model predictions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the uncharacterized geometric factor f(dΩ) and loss factor g in Eq. (2) are not truly constant over the extended emission volume, all reported O2(a1Δg) densities may carry a systematic offset; a direct test would be to flow a known singlet-oxygen source through the same cell and check the recovered density.
  • The ozone overestimation factor of about three may also matter for biomedical dose estimates, since ozone is a strong quencher of O2(a1Δg) and modulates the singlet-oxygen flux reaching a treated surface.
  • A testable extension: adding an ozone wall-loss reaction with a measured sticking coefficient to both models should collapse the factor-of-three discrepancy, and the measured O2(b1Σg+) profiles provide a cheap diagnostic for validating that change.
  • The flow-cell emission approach is generic and could be ported to other jet geometries, provided the calibration factors are measured in situ rather than assumed.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports absolute densities of O2(a1Δg) and O2(b1Σg+) produced by a COST microplasma jet with He/O2 mixtures, using a gas flow cell to enhance the detection volume for the weak 1270 nm emission and ozone absorption spectroscopy to determine the dominant quencher density. The measured O2(a1Δg) densities are compared with a pseudo-1D plug-flow model and a 2D fluid model, and the O2(b1Σg+) measurements are compared with the plug-flow model. The paper claims that both simulations align reasonably well with the experimental data, while the ozone density is overestimated by a factor of about three, and that this ozone overestimation is corroborated by the O2(b1Σg+) consumption rates. The authors conclude that the plasma chemistry in the models is well validated even for complicated effluent geometries.

Significance. If the quantitative claims stand, the paper would provide the first flow-cell-based absolute O2(a1Δg) densities for the COST jet and a useful benchmark for two commonly used modeling approaches. The experimental design is thoughtful in several respects: the O2(a1Δg) analysis uses the measured ozone density rather than the simulated one, so the measurements are not circularly tied to the models; the O2(b1Σg+) data provide an independent consistency check on the ozone overestimation; and the paper is transparent about known limitations such as the non-converged 2D simulation and omitted wall reactions. However, the central benchmark claim is not yet robust because the calibration factors f(dΩ) and g in Eq. (2) are unquantified and no uncertainty is assigned to any measured density, while the 2D simulation is explicitly not at steady state. The paper is therefore best read as a data-rich case study with testable trends, rather than as a fully validated quantitative benchmark in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) contains the geometric factor f(dΩ) and the optical loss factor g, but the paper never gives their values, their derivation, or any uncertainty estimate for them; only the calibration constant C is described. The calibration source is a point-like laser diode, while the emission originates from the extended 79 mm × 14 mm flow-cell volume, and the detection collimator has a diameter of about 10 mm. The fraction of photons collected from an extended source cannot be inferred from a point-source calibration alone. Since f(dΩ) and g multiply the entire O2(a1Δg) density, an unquantified error of even ±50% in either factor changes every data point by that factor, which is comparable to the factor-of-three discrepancy in Fig. 11. The claim that the simulations align 'reasonably well' with the O2(a1Δg) measurements is therefore not reproducible until f(dΩ) and g are quantified or bounded.
  2. [§3.2, Figs. 5, 7, 11-13] The 2D fluid simulation is run for only about 0.2 s and is acknowledged not to have reached a steady state, whereas the experiments are performed after the jet has warmed up and the ozone absorption signal has been monitored for 1 hour, with spectra taken over 5 minutes after ignition. Figure 11 shows the 2D simulation exceeding the experimental O2(a1Δg) density by roughly a factor of three, and the text attributes this discrepancy to the non-equilibrium species distribution; similarly, Fig. 7 attributes the 2D simulation's asymptotic flow-rate trend to the same cause. Comparing a transient simulation with steady-state experiments cannot support the conclusion that the 2D model 'aligned reasonably well' with experiment. The authors should either run the simulation to steady state, present time-dependent results only as qualitative trend indicators, or explicitly label the 2D comparison as non-converged.
  3. [§3.1, Refs. [49] and [50]] The pseudo-1D plug-flow model uses a plasma-chemical kinetics scheme 'identical to that used in [49]' and evaluates the gas temperature with Eq. (1) of [49], but Ref. [49] is listed as 'to be submitted' and is not publicly available. Because the reaction set, rate coefficients, and gas-temperature model are central to the plug-flow predictions and to the claim that the plasma chemistry is 'well validated', the results cannot be reproduced or independently checked without a preprint, a supplementary listing of the full reaction scheme, or a published source. The authors should provide the complete chemistry set and rate data, or replace the unpublished reference with an accessible description.
  4. [Figs. 6-15 and Eq. (1)] No error bars or uncertainty estimates are given for any measured density, despite the paper making quantitative comparisons such as 'a factor of three higher', 'the slope is matching very well', and 'very good agreement'. The ozone density from Eq. (1) depends on pressure, temperature, absorption coefficient, and path length, none of which are assigned uncertainties; the O2(a1Δg) density further propagates the calibration and quenching uncertainties; and the O2(b1Σg+) density inherits the LED and photodiode calibration uncertainties. Without estimates of statistical and systematic uncertainty, the strength of the claimed agreement or disagreement with the simulations cannot be evaluated. The authors should provide at least repeat-measurement statistics, calibration uncertainties, and a propagation analysis through Eq. (2), or explicitly restrict the claims to order-of-magnitude comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4 and §2.5] The decimal separator is inconsistent: '0,3 nm' should be written as '0.3 nm'.
  2. [§4.2, first paragraph] The text contains a typo: 'The bigger cross section in th flow cell' should read 'in the flow cell'.
  3. [Fig. 11 caption] The caption reads 'power of 1 slm He flow'; it should presumably be 'flow of 1 slm He'.
  4. [Abstract and §5] The phrase 'well validated plasma chemistry' is stronger than the factor-of-three ozone overestimation and the unquantified calibration factors support; consider softening to 'plasma chemistry in reasonable order-of-magnitude agreement'.
  5. [§2.2, Fig. 1] The flow cell is connected to the jet by a plastic cap, but it is not stated whether the cap and the inlet-tube junction are included in the simulation domain or in the plug-flow model's effluent length; this geometry detail should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: experimental densities are independent of the simulations; self-cited model chemistry is a dependency, not a feedback loop.

full rationale

The derivation chain is non-circular. The absolute O2(a1Δg) density in Eq. (2) is computed from the measured 1270 nm emission, the spectrometer calibration constant C determined with a laser diode and calibrated InGaAs photodiode, the known flow-cell volume, and the photon yield Q; the quenching rate q in Q uses the experimentally measured ozone density from Eq. (1), not a simulated value. The O2(b1Σg+) density is obtained with a separate LED/Si-photodiode calibration. Neither simulation output enters these equations, so the central experimental claim is not defined in terms of the models. The pseudo-1D plug-flow and 2D fluid models inherit their chemistry from prior work, including the unpublished, overlapping-author manuscript [49] and [55]; this is a reproducibility and dependency concern, and the manuscript itself flags missing support by citing [49] as 'to be submitted' and by not giving values or uncertainties for f(dΩ) and g in Eq. (2). However, no parameter is fitted to the present data, and the models explicitly disagree with experiment (ozone overestimated by a factor of about three), which is the opposite of a forced agreement. The self-citations are therefore not load-bearing for the validity of the measurements; the comparison retains independent, externally falsifiable content. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation dependency (especially [49]) rather than any actual circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement of O2(a1Δg) relies on two unquantified calibration factors, and the simulation comparison assumes the validity of chemistry sets and wall reaction rates taken from prior work, including an unpublished manuscript. No new physical entities are introduced. These are the main supporting premises that a reader would need to accept to trust the absolute densities.

free parameters (2)
  • geometric factor f(dΩ) = not stated
    In Eq. (2), the absolute O2(a1Δg) density depends on f(dΩ), the fraction of photons emitted inside the flow cell that reach the detector. The paper does not describe how this factor was measured or estimated, so it acts as an unconstrained effective parameter.
  • loss factor g = not stated
    The loss factor g in Eq. (2) accounts for optical component losses. Its value is never reported or derived, and it directly scales the absolute O2(a1Δg) density.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The plasma-chemical kinetics schemes used in the two simulations are valid in the effluent region, including the transferability of wall reaction rates optimized for the plasma region.
    Section 3 states wall reaction rates were optimized for the plasma region and ozone wall reactions were neglected; the conclusions rely on this assumption when comparing to experiment.
  • domain assumption The flow cell does not significantly alter the effluent chemistry and the line-of-sight averaged density can be modeled as a volume average.
    Sections 2.2 and 4.1 assume homogeneity within the flow cell to compare experiment and plug flow simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The spectrometer calibration with a point-like laser diode provides a valid absolute intensity calibration for the extended emission volume of the flow cell.
    Section 2.4 describes calibration but does not justify transfer from a point source to volume emission.
  • domain assumption The gas temperature in the effluent regions is 300 K.
    Section 3.1 states the gas temperature in effluent regions is approximated as 300 K; small deviations affect ozone density and quenching rates.
  • domain assumption Ozone is the dominant quencher of O2(a1Δg), allowing the quenching term q to be reduced to k_O3 times n_O3.
    Table 1 lists quenching rates, and the simplification is used in Eq. (2) without independent validation under the flow cell conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Reference [49], an unpublished manuscript, provides a validated chemistry set.
    The plug flow model chemistry is inherited from [49], which is 'to be submitted' and not publicly available, so the chemistry cannot be independently evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of reactive oxygen species produced by the COST microplasma jet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHHZ5LTK

@misc{pith2026250510204,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of reactive oxygen species produced by the COST microplasma jet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHHZ5LTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10204}
}
abstract

This study is focused on measuring the densities of the excited molecular oxygen species, O$_{2}(\text{a}^{1}\Delta_{\text{g}})$ and O$_{2}(\text{b}^{1}\Sigma_{\text{g}}^{+})$, produced in a COST atmospheric pressure plasma jet using a helium-oxygen mixture. Knowledge of the ozone density is critical for measurements because of its high quenching rate of these species. Additionally O$_{2}(\text{a}^{1}\Delta_{\text{g}})$ is difficult to measure, due to its low emission intensity and sensitivity to background interference in the plasma region. Therefore a flow cell was used to enhance signal detection in the effluent region. To validate the measurements and improve understanding of reaction mechanisms, results were compared with two simulation models: a pseudo-1D plug flow simulation and a 2D fluid simulation. The plug flow simulation provided an effective means for estimating species densities, with a fast computation time. The 2D simulation offered a more realistic description of the flow dynamics, which proved critical to correctly describe the experimental trends. However, it requires long computation times to reach an equilibrium state in the flow cell. Otherwise, it leads to discrepancies to the experimental data. Further discrepancies arose, from an overestimation of the ozone density from the models, as validated from the O$_{2}(\text{b}^{1}\Sigma_{\text{g}}^{+})$ density measurements. Optimizing the reaction rate coefficients for the effluent region might improve the agreement with the experimental results. Despite these limitations both simulations aligned reasonably well with experimental data, showcasing the well validated plasma chemistry of the models, even for complicated effluent geometries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10204 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the quartz flow cell dimensions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Emission spectroscopy setup for the O2(b1Σ + g ) measurement in the jet. Red arrow indicates gas flow direction. The setup for the O2(b1Σ + g ) emission spectroscopy is shown in figure 2. O2(b1Σ + g ) emits at 760 nm and was captured with the infrared sensitive spectrometer used in the O2(a1∆g) measurement. The emission was measured mainly in the discharge channel of the COST plasma jet because the relatively short … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Computational domain and spatial distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: O3 density calculated by the plug-flow model along the gas flow direction in and outside the plasma jet. Averaged density in the gas flow cell volume is shown as a red line. Dashed lines show the transition from the jet to the inlet tube (pink) and to the flow cell (bl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: O3 density comparison between simulation and experiment for a effluent temperature of 300 K, flow of 1 slm He and a 0.5 % oxygen admixture depending on the plasma power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: O3 density comparison between simulation and experiment for a effluent temperature of 300 K, power of 1W plasma power and a 0.5 % oxygen admixture depending on the helium flow. deed have a smaller deviation from experimental data. As observed previously in the power va…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: O2(a1∆g) density calculated by the plug flow model along the jet and effluent in the gas flow cell. Dashed lines show the transition from the jet to the inlet tube (pink) and to the flow cell (blue). Averaged density for the gas flow cell volume is shown as a red line.…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: O2(a1∆g) density comparison between simulation and experiment for an effluent temperature of 300 K, power of 1 slm He flow and a 0.5 % oxygen admixture as a function of the plasma power. distribution inside the flow cell does not reach a steady state within the short …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: O2(b1Σ + g ) density distribution comparison between simulation and experiment. Grey area indicates effluent region. Example for a power of 1W , 1 slm He flow and a 0.5 % oxygen admixture as a function of the discharge channel position in the jet. the COST jet without…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: O2(b1Σ + g ) density distribution comparison along the gas channel between simulation and experiment. Grey area indicates effluent region. Example for a power of 1W and 1 slm He flow and an oxygen admixture variation. admixtures a maximum in the first third of the dis…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    These plasma sources offer several advantages over traditional meth- ods

    Introduction Micro atmospheric pressure plasma jets (µAPPJs) [1–6] have garnered significant interest due to their wide-ranging applications, including surface treatment [7, 8], etching [9], and deposition [6, 10]. These plasma sources offer several advantages over traditional meth- ods. Notably, they have a simple setup since they do not require vacuum e...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The red arrows indicate the gas flow direction

    Methods Figure 1: Schematic of the quartz flow cell dimensions and the connection to the COST jet, as well as the position of the collimators for the optical setups. The red arrows indicate the gas flow direction. 2.1. COST plasma jet The COST micro-scaled atmospheric pressure plasma jet, which is described in detail elsewhere [5], is well characterized a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Top electrode

    Computational methods The two simulations presented use a very similar chemical kinetics scheme, leading to a similar prediction about the species distribution inside the plasma chamber. Only simplified wall reactions were taken into account for the reactive species or, in the case of ozone, were completely neglected. The used wall reaction rates were opt...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Ozone density The ozone density was studied under varying power, flow rate, and O2 admixture conditions

    Results 4.1. Ozone density The ozone density was studied under varying power, flow rate, and O2 admixture conditions. Experimental results were compared with simulations from both the pseudo-1D plug flow model and the 2D fluid model. The plug flow model focuses on plasma chemistry within the jet and effluent, as illustrated in Figure 4, while the 2D fluid...

    work page

  5. [5]

    comfort zone

    Conclusion The aim of this work was the measurement of the excited molecular oxygen species O 2(a1∆g) and O2(b1Σ+ g ) produced within the COST atmospheric pressure plasma jet, supplied with a helium oxygen gas mixture. The experimental results were compared to two simulations to validate the measured values and also to investigate established COST jet mod...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Lu X, Laroussi M and Puech V21034005 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0963-0252/21/3/034005

    work page doi:10.1088/0963-0252/21/3/034005

  7. [7]

    iop.org/article/10.1088/0963-0252/24/6/064001

    Winter J, Brandenburg R and Weltmann K D24064001 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience. iop.org/article/10.1088/0963-0252/24/6/064001

    doi:10.1088/0963-0252/24/6/064001

  8. [8]

    1088/0963-0252/21/3/034017

    Robert E, Sarron V, Ri` es D, Dozias S, Vandamme M and Pouvesle J M21034017 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0963-0252/21/3/034017

    work page

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Sobota A, Guaitella O, Sretenovi´ c G B, Krsti´ c I B, Kovaˇ cevi´ c V V, Obrusn´ ık A, Nguyen Y N, Zaj´ ıˇ ckov´ a L, Obradovi´ c B M and Kuraica M M25065026 ISSN 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0963-0252/25/6/065026

    doi

  2. [10]

    1088/0022-3727/49/8/084003

    Golda J, Held J, Redeker B, Konkowski M, Beijer P, Sobota A, Kroesen G, Braithwaite N S J, Reuter S, Turner M M, Gans T, O’Connell D and Schulz- von Der Gathen V49084003 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361- 6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0022-3727/49/8/084003

  3. [11]

    iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aab3ad

    Reuter S, Von Woedtke T and Weltmann K D51233001 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361-6463 URLhttps://iopscience. iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aab3ad

    doi

  4. [12]

    Pawlat J, Terebun P, Kwiatkowski M and Diatczyk J49374001 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361-6463 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0022-3727/49/37/374001

  5. [13]

    Shaw D, West A, Bredin J and Wagenaars E25065018 ISSN 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/0963-0252/25/6/065018

    doi

  6. [14]

    Ichiki T, Taura R and Horiike Y9535– 39 ISSN 0021-8979, 1089-7550 URLhttps: //pubs.aip.org/jap/article/95/1/35/474773/ Localized-and-ultrahigh-rate-etching-of-silicon

  7. [15]

    1088/0741-3335/49/12B/S39

    Benedikt J, Raballand V, Yanguas-Gil A, Focke K and Von Keudell A49B419–B427 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361- 6587 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0741-3335/49/12B/S39

  8. [16]

    Waskoenig J, Niemi K, Knake N, Graham L M, Reuter S, Gathen V S v D and Gans T19045018 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0963-0252/19/4/045018

    doi

  9. [17]

    1088/1361-6595/abbd86

    Preissing P, Korolov I, Schulze J, Schulz-von Der Gathen V and B¨ oke M29125001 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6595/abbd86

  10. [18]

    Bischoff L, H¨ ubner G, Korolov I, Donk´ o Z, Hartmann P, Gans T, Held J, Schulz-von Der Gathen V, Liu Y, Mussenbrock T and Schulze J27125009 ISSN 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1361-6595/aaf35d

    doi

  11. [19]

    org/article/10.1088/0741-3335/54/12/124046

    Maleti´ c D, Puaˇ c N, Lazovi´ c S, Malovi´ c G, Gans T, Schulz- von Der Gathen V and Petrovi´ c Z L54124046 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361-6587 URLhttps://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/0741-3335/54/12/124046

    doi

  12. [20]

    1088/1361-6595/abd0e0

    Liu Y, Korolov I, Trieschmann J, Steuer D, Schulz-von Der Gathen V, B¨ oke M, Bischoff L, H¨ ubner G, Schulze J and Mussenbrock T30064001 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6595/abd0e0

  13. [21]

    1088/1361-6463/abd20e

    Korolov I, Steuer D, Bischoff L, H¨ ubner G, Liu Y, Schulz-von Der Gathen V, B¨ oke M, Mussenbrock T and Schulze J54125203 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361- 15 6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6463/abd20e

  14. [22]

    Graves D B111120–1127 ISSN 1612-8850, 1612-8869 URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ ppap.201400068

  15. [23]

    1186/s13046-018-0909-x

    Yang H, Villani R M, Wang H, Simpson M J, Roberts M S, Tang M and Liang X37266 ISSN 1756-9966 URLhttps://jeccr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10. 1186/s13046-018-0909-x

  16. [24]

    elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213231721002755

    Bekeschus S, Von Woedtke T, Emmert S and Schmidt A 46102116 ISSN 22132317 URLhttps://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213231721002755

  17. [25]

    Kong M G, Kroesen G, Morfill G, Nosenko T, Shimizu T, Van Dijk J and Zimmermann J L11115012 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1367-2630/11/11/115012

    doi

  18. [26]

    1088/0963-0252/21/3/035013

    Lazzaroni C, Chabert P, Lieberman M A, Lichtenberg A J and Leblanc A21035013 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0963-0252/21/3/035013

  19. [27]

    Liu D X, Bruggeman P, Iza F, Rong M Z and Kong M G19025018 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0963-0252/19/2/025018

  20. [28]

    Schr¨ oter S, Wijaikhum A, Gibson A R, West A, Davies H L, Minesi N, Dedrick J, Wagenaars E, De Oliveira N, Nahon L, Kushner M J, Booth J P, Niemi K, Gans T and O’Connell D2024263–24286 ISSN 1463-9076, 1463-9084 URLhttps://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C8CP02473A

  21. [29]

    1088/1361-6587/aa8fe9

    Schr¨ oter S, Gibson A R, Kushner M J, Gans T and O’Connell D60014035 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361- 6587 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6587/aa8fe9

  22. [30]

    1088/0963-0252/23/2/025005

    Murakami T, Niemi K, Gans T, O’Connell D and Graham W G23025005 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0963-0252/23/2/025005

  23. [31]

    1088/0963-0252/22/4/045010

    Murakami T, Niemi K, Gans T, O’Connell D and Graham W G22045010 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0963-0252/22/4/045010

  24. [32]

    1088/0963-0252/22/1/015003

    Murakami T, Niemi K, Gans T, O’Connell D and Graham W G22015003 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0963-0252/22/1/015003

  25. [33]

    Sun B, Liu D, Iza F, Wang S, Yang A, Liu Z, Rong M and Wang X28035006 ISSN 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1361-6595/aaf8e1

  26. [34]

    Gaens W V and Bogaerts A46275201 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361-6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0022-3727/46/27/275201

    doi

  27. [35]

    Gaens W V and Bogaerts A23035015 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0963-0252/23/3/035015

    doi

  28. [36]

    Gaens W V, Bruggeman P J and Bogaerts A16063054 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063054

    doi

  29. [37]

    Turner M M24035027 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0963-0252/24/3/035027

  30. [38]

    iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6595/aa5c22

    Liu D, Sun B, Iza F, Xu D, Wang X, Rong M and Kong M G 26045009 ISSN 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience. iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6595/aa5c22

    doi

  31. [39]

    1088/0963-0252/25/1/015005

    Schmidt-Bleker A, Winter J, B¨ osel A, Reuter S and Weltmann K D25015005 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0963-0252/25/1/015005

  32. [40]

    Schmidt-Bleker A, Winter J, Iseni S, D¨ unnbier M, Weltmann K D and Reuter S47145201 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361-6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0022-3727/47/14/145201

    doi

  33. [41]

    Stafford D S and Kushner M J962451– 2465 ISSN 0021-8979, 1089-7550 URLhttps: //pubs.aip.org/jap/article/96/5/2451/906235/ O2-1-production-in-He-O2-mixtures-in-flowing-low

  34. [42]

    Liu Y, Liu D, Zhang J, Sun B, Yang A and Kong M G 27043512 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URLhttps: //pubs.aip.org/pop/article/27/4/043512/318826/ 1D-fluid-model-of-RF-excited-cold-atmospheric

  35. [43]

    1088/0022-3727/48/44/444002

    Kelly S, Golda J, Turner M M and Schulz-von Der Gathen V48444002 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361- 6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0022-3727/48/44/444002

  36. [44]

    1088/1361-6595/ac61a9

    Viegas P, Slikboer E, Bonaventura Z, Guaitella O, Sobota A and Bourdon A31053001 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6595/ac61a9

  37. [45]

    Vass M, Schulenberg D, Donk´ o Z, Korolov I, Hartmann P, Schulze J and Mussenbrock T33015012 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1361-6595/ad1f37

    doi

  38. [46]

    Klich M, Wilczek S, Donk´ o Z and Brinkmann R P31045003 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1361-6595/ac5cd3

  39. [47]

    1088/0022-3727/44/28/285206

    Hemke T, Wollny A, Gebhardt M, Brinkmann R P and Mussenbrock T44285206 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361- 6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0022-3727/44/28/285206

  40. [48]

    Golda J, Held J and Gathen V S v D29025014 ISSN 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1361-6595/ab6c81

    doi

  41. [50]

    org/article/10.1088/1361-6595/ac7749

    Booth J P, Chatterjee A, Guaitella O, Lopaev D, Zyryanov S, Volynets A, Rakhimova T, Voloshin D, Chukalovsky A, Mankelevich Y and Guerra V31065012 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1361-6595/ac7749

    doi

  42. [51]

    1088/0022-3727/40/2/R01

    Ionin A A, Kochetov I V, Napartovich A P and Yuryshev N N40R25–R61 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361- 6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0022-3727/40/2/R01

  43. [52]

    Sousa J S, Bauville G, Lacour B, Puech V, Touzeau M and Pitchford L C93011502 ISSN 0003-6951, 1077-3118 URLhttps:// pubs.aip.org/apl/article/93/1/011502/326841/ O2-a-1g-production-at-atmospheric-pressure-by

  44. [53]

    Inn E C Y and Tanaka Y 1953Journal of optical society of america43870010 URLhttps://opg.optica.org/ josa/fulltext.cfm?uri=josa-43-10-870&id=50725

  45. [54]

    He Y, Brinkmann R P, Kemaneci E and Gibson A R 2025 Plasma Sources Science and Technology(to be submitted)

    2025

  46. [55]

    He Y, Preissing P, Steuer D, Klich M, von der Gathen V S, B¨ oke M, Korolov I, Schulze J, Guerra V, Brinkmann R P and Kemaneci E 2021Plasma Sources Science and Technology30105017 URLhttps://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1361-6595/ac278d

    doi

  47. [56]

    Chantry P J 1987Journal of Applied Physics621141– 1148 ISSN 0021-8979 (Preprinthttps://pubs.aip.org/ aip/jap/article-pdf/62/4/1141/18611878/1141_1_ online.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.339662

    doi

  48. [57]

    del Caz A T, Guerra V, Gon¸ calves D, da Silva M L, Marques L, Pinh˜ ao N, Pintassilgo C D and Alves L L 2019Plasma Sources Science and Technology28043001 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6595%2Fab0537 16

  49. [58]

    Kushner M J95846–859 ISSN 0021-8979, 1089-7550 URL https://pubs.aip.org/jap/article/95/3/846/770991/ Modeling-of-microdischarge-devices-Pyramidal

  50. [59]

    1088/0022-3727/38/11/001

    Kushner M J381633–1643 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361- 6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0022-3727/38/11/001

  51. [60]

    org/article/10.1088/1361-6595/acb9b8

    Liu Y, Vass M, H¨ ubner G, Schulenberg D, Hemke T, Bischoff L, Chur S, Steuer D, Golda J, B¨ oke M, Schulze J, Korolov I and Mussenbrock T32025012 ISSN 0963-0252, 1361-6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1361-6595/acb9b8

    doi

  52. [61]

    org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/ac09b9

    Steuer D, Korolov I, Chur S, Schulze J, Schulz-von Der Gathen V, Golda J and B¨ oke M54355204 ISSN 0022-3727, 1361-6463 URLhttps://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/ac09b9

    doi

  53. [62]

    1088/1361-6595/aa8ebb

    Wijaikhum A, Schr¨ oder D, Schr¨ oter S, Gibson A R, Niemi K, Friderich J, Greb A, Schulz-von Der Gathen V, O’Connell D and Gans T26115004 ISSN 1361- 6595 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6595/aa8ebb

  54. [63]

    1007/s11090-023-10370-7

    Bang S, Snoeckx R and Cha M S431453–1472 ISSN 0272- 4324, 1572-8986 URLhttps://link.springer.com/10. 1007/s11090-023-10370-7

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.