Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Binding energies of small interstellar molecules on neutral and charged amorphous solid water surfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A negatively charged amorphous solid water surface binds CO up to ~2.7 times more strongly, binds NH3 about 19% more weakly, and barely changes CH4, according to DFT site calculations.

desk verdict A useful first look at charged-ASW binding energies, but the strong CO enhancement is inflated by HCO-formation points that use a different reference state. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01431 v1 pith:7MMYD6VO submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.GA

Tobe Vorsselmans , Erik C. Neyts This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords bindingenergyinterstellarmediummolecularcloudsamorphoussolidwaterchargedsurfacedensityfunctionaltheoryCONH3
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the negative electric charge carried by interstellar dust grains—and by the amorphous solid water mantles that coat them—changes the binding energy of adsorbing molecules, and that the change is specific to each molecule. Using density functional theory on a 33-water-molecule amorphous cluster, it samples 25 surface sites for CO, CH4, and NH3, first on a neutral cluster and then on the same cluster carrying one extra electron. It finds that CO can interact with the localized extra electron: in some sites an electron transfers to CO or CO abstracts a surface hydrogen to form HCO, and the binding energy rises from a neutral range of 1205–2144 K to as high as 5734 K. CH4, which binds by dispersion only, is essentially unaffected, while NH3, whose adsorption is dominated by hydrogen bonds, loses on average 19% of its binding energy on the charged surface. Because desorption and diffusion rates in astrochemical models depend exponentially on binding energy, these shifts, if they hold for real ices, would change freeze-out temperatures and surface chemistry in molecular clouds.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of density functional calculations on one amorphous solid water cluster: 33 water molecules randomly packed in a 10 Å cube, relaxed in a neutral state and in an anionic state with one extra electron. The decisive object is the localized surface state that holds that electron—a molecular orbital composed mainly of dangling-hydrogen atomic orbitals, analogous to the LUMO of a single water molecule. The argument runs through what happens when each adsorbate meets that state: CO accepts the electron or abstracts H, producing high-binding-energy configurations; CH4 cannot interact with it, so its dispersion-dominated binding is unchanged; NH3 feels the extra negative charge as a repulsion that weakens its hydrogen bonds. The electronic-structure treatment is PBE0 with a diffuse triple-zeta basis and a D3(BJ) dispersion correction, benchmarked against CCSD(T) on a small charged water cluster to within about 10%, and the charged-surface method is further checked by reproducing a literature binding energy for HCO+ on negatively charged ASW to within 1.4%.

What would settle it

Recompute the 25-site binding-energy statistics on several independently generated neutral and charged ASW clusters: the charge-specific claim stands only if the average charged-minus-neutral binding energy keeps its sign for each molecule (strongly positive for CO, near zero for CH4, negative for NH3) across all clusters. Experimentally, temperature-programmed desorption from amorphous ice films pre-exposed to low-energy electrons should show an extra high-temperature CO desorption feature and a lower-temperature NH3 desorption peak compared to uncharged ice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that surface charge is a chemically active variable in interstellar ice chemistry, not a small correction to neutral-surface binding energies. On the charged cluster, the extra electron is trapped in a surface orbital built from dangling hydrogen atomic orbitals. CO is the only one of the three molecules that engages this charge: in four of the 25 sampled sites the electron migrates into CO's antibonding orbital, lengthening the C–O bond, or CO abstracts an H atom to form an HCO radical; these configurations bind at 4606–5734 K, against a neutral average of 1621 K. CH4 shows no interaction with the charge and its average binding energy changes by only 5%. NH3 forms hydrogen bonds as both donor and acceptor; on the charged surface the average hydrogen bond lengthens from 1.8084 Å to 1.8268 Å, the charge separation across the bond shrinks, and the average binding energy falls from 7310 K to 5926 K. The paper reads these three behaviors as evidence that gas-grain models should treat charged and neutral binding-energy distributions separately.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a single randomly generated 33-molecule amorphous water cluster, relaxed in neutral and anionic forms, represents interstellar amorphous ice well enough that the differences between its charged and neutral sites reflect the physics of charge rather than the fact that the two clusters relaxed to different shapes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Astrochemical gas-grain models that currently assign one binding energy per species would need a second, charged-surface distribution: desorption and diffusion rates are exponential in binding energy, so the high-energy CO tail would keep some CO on grains until roughly 110 K instead of releasing it at 30 K.
  • The electron-transfer and H-abstraction channels give charged mantles a direct route from accreting CO to HCO radicals, a chemically distinct starting point for further hydrogenation that neutral-surface models do not include.
  • NH3 on negatively charged grains would desorb at lower temperatures—a single peak near 125 K rather than 140–170 K—which would shift where and when nitrogen is available in the gas phase during warm-up, according to the paper's toy desorption model.
  • CH4 behaves the same on neutral and charged mantles, so its desorption temperature and grain-surface mobility do not need a charge correction in models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the sign of the effect should reverse for a positively charged surface: NH3 would likely bind more strongly while CO would not have an electron to accept, a prediction testable with the same method.
  • The single-cluster design suggests a direct robustness test: repeat the 25-site sampling on several independently generated clusters; if the sign of the charged-minus-neutral difference for each molecule does not survive across clusters, part of the reported effect is morphology rather than charge.
  • Because the extra electron sits on dangling hydrogens, the magnitude of the CO effect should depend on surface porosity; compact ices with fewer dangling bonds would show fewer electron-transfer sites, which could be tested by comparing porous and compact charged clusters.
  • A longer reach: if charged mantles convert CO to HCO on impact, then the local ionization environment of a cloud—not just its temperature history—could modulate the efficiency of CO hydrogenation, linking grain charging to the observed diversity of complex organic molecule abundances.
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 reports DFT calculations (PBE0/6-311++G(d,p) with D3(BJ) dispersion) of the binding energies of CO, CH4, and NH3 on a 33-molecule amorphous solid water cluster, comparing a neutral cluster with a negatively charged cluster. Twenty-five initial adsorption sites per molecule are used. The authors report a wider and higher CO binding-energy range on the charged surface, which they attribute to electron transfer and HCO formation; essentially unchanged CH4 binding energies; and a lower average NH3 binding energy on the charged surface. A zero-point-energy correction is approximated by a linear scaling BE0 = 0.8813 BE fitted to frequency calculations on representative configurations.

Significance. The question addressed is timely: interstellar dust grains can carry negative charge, and if binding energies of key ice constituents change on charged surfaces, gas-grain astrochemical models should incorporate this effect. The manuscript has clear strengths: the electronic-structure method is benchmarked against CCSD(T) for a charged water cluster, and the HCO+ binding energy on charged ASW is reproduced within 1.4% of the value reported by Rimola et al. These external anchors give reasonable confidence in the level of theory. However, the central claim about CO rests on a small number of configurations, three of which are computed with a different reference state than Eq. (1), and the single-cluster design does not allow the charge effect to be separated from morphology changes. As a result, the paper currently provides qualitative hints rather than a robust quantitative result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (1)] For the three HCO-formation configurations, the binding energy is defined as the binding energy of HCO on an ASW surface with one hydrogen atom removed. This is not the quantity defined in Eq. (1), which requires E(CO)+E(ASW-) in the separated-reference term. The HCO-formation values (average 4606 K in Fig. 5c) therefore measure the stability of a reaction product on a hydrogen-deficient surface, not the binding energy of CO to the original charged ASW. Since these three points are part of the high-energy tail that drives the conclusion (Table 3, Fig. 5a) and the 110 K desorption feature in Fig. 16, the claim that CO binding energy increases on charged ASW is not supported by the majority of the elevated configurations. These configurations should be reported separately, e.g., as reactive-sticking or product binding energies, and the conclusion should be revised accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2] The neutral and charged clusters are optimized independently and are not the same structure, as the manuscript itself notes for Fig. 2a/b. The differences in binding-energy distributions between charge states are therefore entangled with the difference in local morphology. In addition, all statistics are drawn from one 33-molecule cluster and 25 grid positions, with no standard deviations or confidence intervals reported. The ranges in Table 3 cannot be taken as robust distributions for interstellar ASW. The authors should at least compute the neutral-surface binding energies on the charged-cluster geometry (and vice versa) to isolate the charge effect, or use several independent clusters.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Sec. 4.3] The electron-transfer channel, which is the single remaining high-binding-energy configuration for CO with a consistent reference state, is not benchmarked. The CCSD(T) benchmark in Table 1 concerns a negatively charged water cluster, and the Rimola et al. comparison concerns HCO+ on ASW; neither tests the accuracy of PBE0 for the CO-...ASW or HCO...ASW systems that carry the main conclusion. A wavefunction benchmark (e.g., CCSD(T) or at least MP2) for one electron-transfer and one HCO-formation configuration would substantially strengthen the central claim. Without it, the reader cannot distinguish a real charge-induced enhancement from a density-functional artifact.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2] The text refers to 'figure 2d' when placing molecules on the 5x5 grid, but the figure does not show a panel (d); either add the panel or correct the reference.
  2. [Sec. 3.4] The linear ZPE scaling BE0 = 0.8813 BE is fit through the authors' own data and is not justified for charge-transfer and HCO-formation configurations, whose vibrational densities differ qualitatively; since the uncorrected values are used in the main discussion, this is a caveat rather than an error.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The name 'Fererro' is a typo for 'Ferrero'.
  4. [Sec. 4.4, Fig. 11] There are minor language issues: 'untill' should be 'until', and the caption of Fig. 11(b) refers to 'a charge' surface where 'a charged' is intended.
  5. [Sec. 2, Table 3] The spin multiplicity of the anionic cluster is not reported; it should be stated explicitly. In addition, Table 3 would benefit from including the standard deviation of the 25 samples for each molecule and charge state.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The charged-surface CO binding-energy increase is definitionally built from HCO binding energies to a dehydrogenated surface, not from Eq. (1) CO binding energies.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.1 (CO results), Table 3, Fig. 5c; propagated to Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 4.4]
    "To determine the binding energy after HCO formation, we calculate it as the binding energy of HCO on the ASW surface with one hydrogen atom removed."

    Equation (1) fixes the reference state as the free adsorbate plus the intact ASW surface: BE = [E(molecule)+E(ASW)] - E(molecule+ASW). For the three HCO-formation points, however, the reference is changed to E(HCO) plus E(ASW with one H removed). Those points therefore measure HCO binding to a dehydrogenated, damaged surface, not CO binding to the original charged ASW. The paper nevertheless reports them as CO charged-surface binding energies, which is what raises the charged maximum to 5734 K (Table 3) and creates the high tail in Fig. 5a and the 110 K desorption peak in Sec. 4.4.

full rationale

Apart from the HCO-formation reference-state substitution, the paper's derivation chain is not circular. The method is anchored to external benchmarks (CCSD(T)/Aug-CC-pVTZ for the charged water cluster; the HCO+ binding energy of Rimola et al. 2021), and the neutral binding energies are compared with Ferrero et al. 2020. The ZPE correction factor BE(0)=0.8813 BE is a fit to the paper's own frequency calculations, but the main neutral-vs-charged comparisons and all Table 3 values are uncorrected, so the fit does not drive the conclusions. CH4 and NH3 conclusions rest on the same cluster but on ordinary Eq. (1) energies and are not affected by the HCO redefinition. The deeper sampling limitation is that all statistics come from 25 sites on one Packmol-generated 33-molecule cluster whose neutral and anionic forms relax to different morphologies; that is a representativeness/correctness risk, not circularity. The single genuine circular step is the CO/HCO redefinition documented above, which partially constructs the headline CO enhancement, warranting a score of 6 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adequacy of the DFT protocol and on the representativeness of a single ASW cluster. No new physical entities are introduced. The only fitted numeric input is the ZPE correction factor, which does not drive the qualitative conclusions.

free parameters (1)
  • Zero-point-energy correction factor = 0.8813
    Linear regression through the authors' own frequency-corrected binding energies for unique end configurations; used to estimate ZPE corrections without computing them for every site.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption PBE0/6-311++G(d,p)+D3(BJ) accurately describes charged water clusters and adsorption of CO, CH4, and NH3.
    Benchmarked to CCSD(T) for a charged water cluster (10% MUE) and to HCO+ on ASW (1.4% difference), but not to higher-level or experimental data for the three target molecules on charged ASW. DFT errors for excess electrons are acknowledged in Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption One random 33-molecule ASW cluster is representative of interstellar amorphous water ice.
    Random placement via Packmol guarantees an amorphous cluster, but one realization cannot sample morphological diversity. The neutral and charged clusters relax to different structures, so the charge comparison is entangled with a possible morphology change (Section 2, Figure 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Zero-point-energy corrections scale linearly with uncorrected binding energies.
    The relation BE(0) = 0.8813 BE is a linear fit to the authors' own frequency calculations (Figure 12), used to extrapolate corrections for configurations where frequencies were not computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binding energies of small interstellar molecules on neutral and charged amorphous solid water surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MMYD6VO

@misc{pith2026250601431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binding energies of small interstellar molecules on neutral and charged amorphous solid water surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MMYD6VO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01431}
}
read the original abstract

The interstellar medium (ISM) is all but empty. To date, more than 300 molecules have already been discovered. Because of the extremely low temperature, the gas-phase chemistry is dominated by barrierless exothermic reactions of radicals and ions. However, several abundant molecules and organic molecules cannot be produced efficiently by gas-phase reactions. To explain the existence of such molecules in the ISM, gas-surface interactions between small molecules and dust particles covered with amorphous solid water (ASW) mantles must be considered. In general, surface processes such as adsorption, diffusion, desorption, and chemical reactions can be linked to the binding energy of molecules to the surface. Hence, a lot of studies have been performed to identify the binding energies of interstellar molecules on ASW surfaces. Cosmic radiation and free electrons may induce a negative charge on the dust particles, and the binding energies may be affected by this charge. In this study, we calculate the binding energies of CO, CH4, and NH3, on neutral and charged ASW surfaces using DFT calculations. Our results indicate that CO can interact with the surface charge, increasing its binding energy. In contrast, the binding energy of CH4 remains unchanged in the presence of surface charge, and that of NH3 typically decreases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Neutral (a) and Charged (b) ASW surface used for the calculations. (c) Blue dots show where the molecules are placed on the ASW surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The HOMO of the charged ASW cluster (a), only showing the closest interacting water molecules for clarity. (b) Shows the LUMO of a neutral water molecule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Interaction between CO and the ASW surface for end configurations OH–CO and OH–O-C–HO. The end configurations for the charged surface are divided in the same way as the neutral end configurations. Additionally, there are two more possible configurations (denoted as HCO…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results from the CO calculations. (a) shows the neutral and charged binding energies, without zero point energy correction. (b) and (c) show the distributions over the different end configurations. 3.2. CH4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HOMO’s of the e-transfer and HCO formation end configurations, showing the clear transfer of the extra electron from the surface to the CO molecule. The binding energies of NH3 strongly depend on the number of hydrogen bonds formed with the surface as NH3 is both a hyd…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Intermolecular distances between CO and the ASW surface (a and b) and the bond length of CO after adsorption (c). For each distinct final configuration, we calculated the zero point energy correction related to the binding energies of CO, CH4, and NH3. Using these freq…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results from the CH4 calculations. (a) shows the neutral and charged binding energies, without zero point energy correction. (b) and (c) show the distributions over the different end configurations. electron bound (Jensen 2010) and a too high Highest Occupied Molecular…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Intermolecular distance between the ASW surface and CH4 for every neutral and charged configuration. Every binding site on the ASW slab used for our calculations is unique, which is characteristic of an amorphous surface. Consequently, the binding energies of the three…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results from the NH3 calculations. (a) shows the neutral and charged binding energies, without zero point energy correction. (b) and (c) show the distributions over the different end configurations. the extra electron. The surrounding dangling hydrogens help to stabil…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Intermolecular distances for the adsorption of NH3 on an neutral (a) and a charge (b) ASW surface . 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 BE (K) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 BE(0) (K) BE(0) = 0.8813 BE R 2 = 0.995 CO CH4 NH3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Linear regression between the binding energy (BE) and the zero point energy corrected binding energy (BE(0)) for CO, CH4 and NH3. and 10c), the average binding energy decreases in all cases. This reduction is attributed to the weakening of hydrogen bonds. By charging …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of our computed neutral binding energies on the ASW surface with the results from Ferrero et al. (red dotted lines). All energies do not include zero point energy correction. The above-mentioned processes are often studied using grain surface modeling techn…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of our computed charged binding energies on the ASW surface with our neutral results (blue dotted lines). All energies do not include zero point energy correction. Both rates depend exponentially on the binding energy of a species. This means that when the …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The two possible end configurations when CO interacts with the extra electron from the surface. (a) Shows an electron transfer from the surface towards the CO molecule and (b) shows a spontaneous H-abstraction forming HCO. Only the closest water molecules form the sur…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Normalised desorption rates for CO (a), CH4 (b) and NH3 (c) when heating an ASW surface from 10 K to 400 K in 105 years. The blue lines show the desorption rate on a neutral surface, the orange dotted lines show the desorption rate on charged surfaces. including free …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1999, The Journal of chemical physics, 110, 6158

    Adamo, C., & Barone, V. 1999, The Journal of chemical physics, 110, 6158

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    J., Kroes, G

    Al-Halabi, A., Fraser, H. J., Kroes, G. J., & Dishoeck, E. F. V. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 422, 777

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    2019, Journal of chemical theory and computation, 16, 443

    Amati, M., Stoia, S., & Baerends, E. 2019, Journal of chemical theory and computation, 16, 443

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    2014, Accounts of chemical research, 47, 2592

    Autschbach, J., & Srebro, M. 2014, Accounts of chemical research, 47, 2592

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    M., Vogt-Geisse, S., Bovino, S., & Grassi, T

    Bovolenta, G. M., Vogt-Geisse, S., Bovino, S., & Grassi, T. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 17

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1

    Cuppen, H., Walsh, C., Lamberts, T., et al. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    K., & Loison, J.-C

    Das, A., Sil, M., Gorai, P., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Loison, J.-C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 9

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    1987, The Astrophysical Journal, 320, 803

    Draine, B., & Sutin, B. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal, 320, 803

    work page 1987

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 24

    Duflot, D., Toubin, C., & Monnerville, M. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 24

    2021

  2. [10]

    2019, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 3, 2158

    Enrique-Romero, J., Rimola, A., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2019, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 3, 2158

    2019

  3. [11]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 11

    Ferrero, S., Zamirri, L., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 11

    2020

  4. [12]

    J., Trucks, G

    Frisch, M. J., Trucks, G. W., Schlegel, H. B., et al. 2016, Gaussian˜16 Revision C.01

    2016

  5. [13]

    2011, Journal of computational chemistry, 32, 1456

    Grimme, S., Ehrlich, S., & Goerigk, L. 2011, Journal of computational chemistry, 32, 1456

    2011

  6. [14]

    V., Padovani, M., Galli, D., & Caselli, P

    Ivlev, A. V., Padovani, M., Galli, D., & Caselli, P. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 135

    2015

  7. [15]

    2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation, 6, 2726 Mart ´ ınez, L., Andrade, R., Birgin, E

    Jensen, F. 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation, 6, 2726 Mart ´ ınez, L., Andrade, R., Birgin, E. G., & Mart ´ ınez, J. M. 2009, Journal of computational chemistry, 30, 2157

    2010

  8. [16]

    1956, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 116, 503

    Mestel, L., & Spitzer Jr, L. 1956, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 116, 503

    1956

  9. [17]

    2022, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 6, 597

    Minissale, M., Aikawa, Y., Bergin, E., et al. 2022, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 6, 597

    2022

  10. [18]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1122

    Okuzumi, S. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1122

    2009

  11. [19]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, 56

    Pantaleone, S., Enrique-Romero, J., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, 56

    2020

  12. [20]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 71

    Penteado, E., Walsh, C., & Cuppen, H. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 71

    2017

  13. [21]

    P., Ernzerhof, M., & Burke, K

    Perdew, J. P., Ernzerhof, M., & Burke, K. 1996, The Journal of chemical physics, 105, 9982

    1996

  14. [22]

    P., Parr, R

    Perdew, J. P., Parr, R. G., Levy, M., & Balduz Jr, J. L. 1982, Physical Review Letters, 49, 1691

    1982

  15. [23]

    P., & Zunger, A

    Perdew, J. P., & Zunger, A. 1981, Physical Review B, 23, 5048

    1981

  16. [24]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 655405

    Rimola, A., Ceccarelli, C., Balucani, N., & Ugliengo, P. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 655405

    2021

  17. [25]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, A70 Spitzer Jr, L

    Ceccarelli, C. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, A70 Spitzer Jr, L. 1941, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 93, p. 369, 93, 369

    2014

  18. [26]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2005, The physics and chemistry of the interstellar medium (Cambridge University Press)

    2005

  19. [27]

    2022, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 6, 1514, doi: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00040

    Tinacci, L., Germain, A., Pantaleone, S., et al. 2022, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 6, 1514, doi: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00040

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, Accounts of Chemical Research, 54, 471, doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.0c00634

    Tsuge, M., & Watanabe, N. 2021, Accounts of Chemical Research, 54, 471, doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.0c00634

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Scuseria, G

    Vydrov, O. A., Scuseria, G. E., & Perdew, J. P. 2007, The Journal of chemical physics, 126

    2007

  22. [30]

    2017, Molecular Astrophysics, 6, 22

    Wakelam, V., Loison, J.-C., Mereau, R., & Ruaud, M. 2017, Molecular Astrophysics, 6, 22

    2017

  23. [31]

    2006, Phys

    Weigend, F. 2006, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 8, 1057, doi: 10.1039/B515623H

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    Woon, D. E. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 1357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3242

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 1427

    Zamirri, L., Casassa, S., Rimola, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 1427

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.