pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.21734 · v1 · submitted 2025-08-29 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Computational study of interactions between ionized glyphosate and carbon nanotube: An alternative for mitigating environmental contamination

H. T. Silva , L. C. S. Faria , T. A. Aversi-Ferreira , I. Camps This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 20:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords glyphosatecarbon nanotubesadsorptionionization statesenvironmental remediationsemi-empirical calculationsGFN2-xTB
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ionized glyphosate binds more strongly to carbon nanotubes than the neutral form.

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

The paper uses semi-empirical simulations to compare how glyphosate in five different ionization states interacts with single-walled carbon nanotubes. Four of the charged forms show higher adsorption energies and stronger electronic coupling than the neutral state that occurs at pH 2-3. A sympathetic reader would care because glyphosate is a widely used herbicide whose removal from water and soil remains difficult, and the results point to nanotubes as a possible capture material whose performance depends on the molecule's charge. The work also notes that one charged complex has moderate binding strength that could permit reuse of the nanotube after remediation.

Core claim

The central claim is that glyphosate in the G1, G3, G4, and G5 ionized forms exhibits stronger interactions with carbon nanotubes than the neutral G2 form, as shown by higher adsorption energies and greater electronic coupling in GFN2-xTB calculations. Topological analysis identifies a combination of covalent, non-covalent, and partially covalent contacts, while molecular dynamics supports the stability of these complexes. The CNT+G5 system in particular displays moderate interaction strength suitable for material recycling.

What carries the argument

The five protonation states of glyphosate (G1 to G5) at different pH ranges and the adsorption energies plus electronic coupling they produce when placed on a carbon nanotube surface.

If this is right

  • Carbon nanotubes could remove ionized glyphosate from water across most pH ranges encountered in the environment.
  • The neutral form at pH near 2-3 would adsorb less efficiently and might require different conditions or materials.
  • Moderate binding in the G5 complex would allow the nanotubes to be regenerated and reused after capturing the pesticide.
  • The observed electronic coupling opens the possibility of using the same systems for detection as well as removal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the binding differences hold, nanotube-based filters could be engineered to treat agricultural runoff at typical soil pH levels.
  • The same computational approach might be tested on other charged organic contaminants to broaden remediation options.
  • Running the same structures with higher-level quantum methods would provide a concrete check on whether the semi-empirical trends survive.

Load-bearing premise

The GFN2-xTB semi-empirical method supplies sufficiently accurate adsorption energies and interaction types for these ionized systems.

What would settle it

Laboratory measurement of the quantity of glyphosate adsorbed onto carbon nanotubes at fixed pH values, followed by direct comparison of the experimental uptake or binding strength to the computed values.

read the original abstract

The extensive use of glyphosate in agriculture has raised environmental concerns due to its adverse effects on plants, animals, microorganisms, and humans. This study investigates the interactions between ionized glyphosate and single-walled carbon nanotubes (CNT) using computational simulations through semi-empirical tight-binding methods (GFN2-xTB) implemented in the xTB software. The analysis focused on different glyphosate ionization states corresponding to various pH levels: G1 (pH < 2), G2 (pH ~ 2-3), G3 (pH ~ 4-6), G4 (pH ~ 7-10), and G5 (pH > 10.6). Results revealed that glyphosate in G1, G3, G4, and G5 forms exhibited stronger interactions with CNT, demonstrating higher adsorption energies and greater electronic coupling. The neutral state (G2) showed lower affinity, indicating that molecular protonation significantly influences adsorption. Topological analysis and molecular dynamics confirmed the presence of covalent, non-covalent, and partially covalent interactions, while the CNT+G5 system demonstrated moderate interactions suitable for material recycling. These findings suggest that carbon nanotubes, with their extraordinary properties such as nanocapillarity, porosity, and extensive surface area, show promise for environmental monitoring and remediation of glyphosate contamination.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a computational investigation of the adsorption interactions between five ionized forms of glyphosate (G1 at pH < 2, G2 at pH ~2-3, G3 at pH ~4-6, G4 at pH ~7-10, and G5 at pH >10.6) and single-walled carbon nanotubes using the GFN2-xTB semi-empirical tight-binding method. The central claim is that the G1, G3, G4, and G5 forms display stronger adsorption energies and greater electronic coupling than the neutral G2 form, with topological analysis and molecular dynamics confirming covalent, non-covalent, and partially covalent interactions; the CNT+G5 system is highlighted for moderate interactions suitable for material recycling, suggesting CNT utility for environmental remediation of glyphosate.

Significance. If the reported adsorption energy ordering and interaction types hold, the work offers timely computational insights into pH-dependent glyphosate-CNT binding relevant to agricultural pollution mitigation. The efficient screening of multiple protonation states via GFN2-xTB is a methodological strength for exploring large systems. The suggestion of CNT+G5 for recycling adds practical value. However, the absence of any benchmarking or experimental cross-validation limits the quantitative reliability and broader impact for remediation applications.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: the claim that G1, G3, G4, and G5 forms exhibit stronger interactions (higher adsorption energies and greater electronic coupling) rests entirely on GFN2-xTB outputs without reported benchmarking against DFT, higher-level ab initio methods, or experimental adsorption isotherms; this is load-bearing because GFN2-xTB performance on charged adsorbates and dispersion on extended π-systems is known to be variable, directly affecting the reliability of the relative affinities and remediation conclusions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and main text do not report error bars, convergence criteria, or basis-set/system-size checks for the GFN2-xTB adsorption energies, which would strengthen the quantitative claims.
  2. [Results] Clarify the precise definition of 'electronic coupling' and how it is quantified from the calculations (e.g., via charge transfer or orbital overlap metrics).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the timely relevance of pH-dependent glyphosate adsorption on carbon nanotubes as well as the efficiency of screening multiple protonation states with GFN2-xTB. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: the claim that G1, G3, G4, and G5 forms exhibit stronger interactions (higher adsorption energies and greater electronic coupling) rests entirely on GFN2-xTB outputs without reported benchmarking against DFT, higher-level ab initio methods, or experimental adsorption isotherms; this is load-bearing because GFN2-xTB performance on charged adsorbates and dispersion on extended π-systems is known to be variable, directly affecting the reliability of the relative affinities and remediation conclusions.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not report explicit benchmarking of GFN2-xTB results against DFT, higher-level methods, or experimental isotherms, and that this constitutes a limitation for the quantitative strength of the absolute adsorption energies. The method was chosen because it enables efficient exploration of five distinct ionization states on an extended nanotube model, a task that remains prohibitive for routine DFT on systems of this size. Existing literature validations of GFN2-xTB for dispersion-dominated adsorption on carbon nanostructures and for charged organic species support its use for identifying relative trends across protonation states. In the revised manuscript we will add a concise subsection (likely in Computational Details) that (i) cites relevant benchmark studies on GFN2-xTB performance for similar CNT–organic and charged adsorbate systems, (ii) explicitly states the expected accuracy range for relative energies, and (iii) qualifies the remediation conclusions accordingly. This textual revision will directly address the referee’s concern without requiring new high-level calculations at this stage. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct outputs from standard GFN2-xTB computations

full rationale

The paper's central results—adsorption energies, electronic coupling, and interaction classifications for the five glyphosate ionization states (G1–G5) on CNT—are obtained by direct application of the GFN2-xTB semi-empirical method to optimized geometries, followed by standard topological and molecular-dynamics post-processing. No parameters are fitted to the adsorption data, no target quantities are defined in terms of themselves, and no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear in the derivation. The ordering of affinities and the remediation implications therefore follow from the method's Hamiltonian and the chosen molecular models rather than from any circular reduction to the paper's own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transferability of the GFN2-xTB parameterization to glyphosate-CNT systems and on standard assumptions about periodic boundary conditions and dispersion corrections in nanotube models. No free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption GFN2-xTB semi-empirical method yields reliable relative adsorption energies for organic molecules on carbon nanostructures
    Invoked when reporting higher adsorption energies for ionized forms without higher-level benchmarks
  • domain assumption Ionization states G1-G5 accurately represent glyphosate protonation at the stated pH ranges
    Used to map simulation results to environmental pH conditions

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5788 in / 1363 out tokens · 58371 ms · 2026-05-18T20:15:59.100804+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. Feng, A. Soric, O. Boutin, Treatment technologies and degradation pathways of glyphosate: A critical review, Sci. Total Environ. 742 (2020) 140559 (2020). doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140559

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140559 2020

  2. [2]

    M. Tudi, H. Daniel Ruan, L. Wang, J. Lyu, R. Sadler, D. Connell, C. Chu, D. T. Phung, Agriculture development, pesticide application and its impact on the environment, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 18 (2021) 1112 (2021). doi:10.3390/ijerph18031112

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph18031112 2021

  3. [3]

    F. P . Carvalho, Pesticides, environment, and food safety, Food Energy Secur. 6 (2017) 48–60 (2017).doi:10.1002/fes3.108

    work page doi:10.1002/fes3.108 2017

  4. [4]

    L. K. V . Gomes, L. H. V . Gomes, J. C. M. Amaral, P . P . Vidal, I. T. d. S. Gomes, A. M. d. J. Chaves Neto, A. F. G. Neto, Molecular dynamics of carbon nanotube with fipronil and glyphosate pesticides, The Journal of Engineering and Exact Sciences 9 (2023) 16128–01e (2023). doi:10.18540/jcecvl9iss6pp16128-01e

    work page doi:10.18540/jcecvl9iss6pp16128-01e 2023

  5. [5]

    P . J. Espinoza-Montero, C. Vega-Verduga, P . Alulema-Pullupaxi, L. Fernández, J. L. Paz, Technologies employed in the treatment of water contaminated with glyphosate: A review, Molecules 25 (2020) 5550 (2020). doi:10.3390/molecules25235550

    work page doi:10.3390/molecules25235550 2020

  6. [6]

    Jayasumana, S

    C. Jayasumana, S. Gunatilake, P . Senanayake, Glyphosate, hard water and nephrotoxic metals: are they the culprits behind the epidemic of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology in Sri Lanka?, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 11 (2014) 2125–2147 (2014). doi:10.3390/ijerph110202125

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph110202125 2014

  7. [7]

    K. F. Mendes, R. N. de Sousa, A. F. S. Laube, Current approaches to pesticide use and glyphosate-resistant weeds in Brazilian agriculture, in: J. Moudrý, K. F. Mendes, J. Bernas, R. da Silva Teixeira, R. N. de Sousa (Eds.), Multifunctionality and Impacts of Organic and Conventional Agriculture, IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2020, Ch. 1 (2020). doi:10.5772/intechope...

    work page doi:10.5772/intechopen.91872 2020

  8. [8]

    Haque, J

    E. Haque, J. W. Jun, S. H. Jhung, Adsorptive removal of methyl orange and methylene blue from aqueous solution with a metal-organic framework material, iron terephthalate (MOF-235), J. Hazard. Mater. 185 (2011) 507–511 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09. 035

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09 2011

  9. [9]

    Q. Yang, J. Wang, X. Chen, W. Yang, H. Pei, N. Hu, Z. Li, Y. Suo, T. Li, J. Wang, The simultaneous detection and removal of organophosphorus pesticides by a novel Zr-MOF based smart adsorbent, J. Mater. Chem.A 6 (2018) 2184–2192 (2018). doi:10.1039/ C7TA08399H

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Gaberell, C

    L. Gaberell, C. Hoinkes, Highly hazardous profits. how Syngenta makes billions by selling toxic pesticides, Tech. rep., PUBLIC EYE (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Arora, P

    B. Arora, P . Attri, Carbon nanotubes (CNTs): A potential nanomaterial for water purification, J. Compos. Sci. 4 (2020) 135 (2020). doi:10.3390/jcs4030135

    work page doi:10.3390/jcs4030135 2020

  12. [12]

    Jampílek, K

    J. Jampílek, K. Králová, Carbon nanomaterials for agri-food and environmental applications, Elsevier, 2020, Ch. 17 - Potential of nanoscale carbon-based materials for remediation of pesticide-contaminated environment, pp. 359–399 (2020). doi:10.1016/ B978-0-12-819786-8.00017-7

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Rahman, Z

    G. Rahman, Z. Najaf, A. Mehmood, S. Bilal, A. Shah, S. Mian, G. Ali, An overview of the recent progress in the synthesis and applications of carbon nanotubes, C 5 (2019) 3 (2019). doi:10.3390/c5010003

    work page doi:10.3390/c5010003 2019

  14. [14]

    Aligayev, F

    A. Aligayev, F. Raziq, U. Jabbarli, N. Rzayev, L. Qiao, Chapter 17 - Morphology and topography of nanotubes, in: Y. Al-Douri (Ed.), Graphene, Nanotubes and Quantum Dots-Based Nanotechnology, Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials, Woodhead Publishing, 2022, pp. 355–420 (2022). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85457-3.00019-0 ...

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-85457-3.00019-0 2022

  15. [15]

    J. Peng, Y. He, C. Zhou, S. Su, B. Lai, The carbon nanotubes-based materials and their applications for organic pollutant removal: A critical review, Chinese Chem. Lett. 32 (2021) 1626–1636 (2021). doi:10.1016/j.cclet.2020.10.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cclet.2020.10.026 2021

  16. [16]

    K. Sen, S. Chattoraj, Intelligent environmental data monitoring for pollution management, Elsevier, 2021, Ch. A comprehensive review of glyphosate adsorption with factors influencing mechanism: Kinetics, isotherms, thermodynamics study, pp. 93–125 (2021). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-819671-7.00005-1

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819671-7.00005-1 2021

  17. [17]

    E. J. Barreiro, C. R. Rodrigues, M. G. a. Albuquerque, C. M. R. d. Sant’Anna, R. B. d. Alencastro, Molecular modeling: a tool for rational drug design in medicinal chemistry, Química Nova 20 (1997) 300–310 (1997). doi:10.1590/S0100-40421997000300011

    work page doi:10.1590/s0100-40421997000300011 1997

  18. [18]

    E. J. Barreiro, C. A. M. Fraga, A. L. P . Miranda, C. R. Rodrigues, Medicinal chemistry of N-acylhydrazones: novel lead- compounds of analgesic, antiinflammatory and antithrombotic drugs, Química Nova 25 (2002) 129–148 (2002). doi:10.1590/ S0100-40422002000100022

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    Bannwarth, E

    C. Bannwarth, E. Caldeweyher, S. Ehlert, A. Hansen, P . Pracht, J. Seibert, S. Spicher, S. Grimme, Extended tight-binding quantum chemistry methods, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 11 (2020) e1493 (2020). doi:10.1002/wcms.1493. Silva et al. 11

    work page doi:10.1002/wcms.1493 2020

  20. [20]

    H. B. Schlegel, Geometry optimization, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 1 (2011) 790–809 (2011). doi:10.1002/wcms.34

    work page doi:10.1002/wcms.34 2011

  21. [21]

    Aguiar, I

    C. Aguiar, I. Camps, Exploring the potential of boron-nitride nanobelts in environmental applications: Greenhouse gases capture, Surfaces and Interfaces 52 (2024) 104874 (2024). doi:10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104874

    work page doi:10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104874 2024

  22. [22]

    G. A. D. Herath, L. S. Poh, W. J. Ng, Statistical optimization of glyphosate adsorption by biochar and activated carbon with response surface methodology, Chemosphere 227 (2019) 533–540 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.078

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.078 2019

  23. [23]

    Plett, S

    C. Plett, S. Grimme, Automated and efficient generation of general molecular aggregate structures, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 62 (2022). doi:10.1002/anie.202214477

    work page doi:10.1002/anie.202214477 2022

  24. [24]

    Rauk, Orbital interaction theory of organic chemistry, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2000 (2000)

    A. Rauk, Orbital interaction theory of organic chemistry, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2000 (2000). doi:10.1002/0471220418

    work page doi:10.1002/0471220418 2000

  25. [25]

    T. A. Albright, J. K. Burdett, M.-H. Whangbo, Orbital interactions in chemistry, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2013 (2013). doi:10.1002/ 0471220418

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    J. T. Kohn, N. Gildemeister, S. Grimme, D. Fazzi, A. Hansen, Efficient calculation of electronic coupling integrals with the dimer projection method via a density matrix tight-binding potential, J. Chem. Phys. 159 (2023) 144106 (2023). doi:10.1063/5.0167484

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0167484 2023

  27. [27]

    T. Lu, F. Chen, Multiwfn: A multifunctional wavefunction analyzer, J. Comput. Chem. 33 (2012) 580–592 (2012). doi:10.1002/jcc. 22885

    work page doi:10.1002/jcc 2012

  28. [28]

    Lu, A comprehensive electron wavefunction analysis toolbox for chemists, Multiwfn, J

    T. Lu, A comprehensive electron wavefunction analysis toolbox for chemists, Multiwfn, J. Chem. Phys. 161 (2024) 082503 (2024). doi:10.1063/5.0216272

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0216272 2024

  29. [29]

    R. F. W. Bader, Atoms in molecules: a quantum theory, International series of monographs on chemistry, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994 (1994)

    work page 1994

  30. [30]

    D. Koch, M. Pavanello, X. Shao, M. Ihara, P . W. Ayers, C. F. Matta, S. Jenkins, S. Manzhos, The analysis of electron densities: from basics to emergent applications, Chem. Rev. 124 (2024) 12661–12737 (2024). doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00297

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00297 2024

  31. [31]

    Fedorov, Topological analysis of electron density in graphene/benzene and graphene/hBN, Materials 18 (2025) 1790 (2025)

    I. Fedorov, Topological analysis of electron density in graphene/benzene and graphene/hBN, Materials 18 (2025) 1790 (2025). doi:10.3390/ma18081790

    work page doi:10.3390/ma18081790 2025

  32. [32]

    J. M. Martínez, L. Martínez, Packing optimization for automated generation of complex system’s initial configurations for molecular dynamics and docking, J. Comput. Chem. 24 (2003) 819–825 (2003). doi:10.1002/jcc.10216

    work page doi:10.1002/jcc.10216 2003

  33. [33]

    Spicher and S

    S. Spicher, S. Grimme, Robust atomistic modeling of materials, organometallic, and biochemical systems, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 59 (2020) 15665–15673 (2020). doi:10.1002/anie.202004239

    work page doi:10.1002/anie.202004239 2020

  34. [34]

    Hansen, I

    J.-P . Hansen, I. R. McDonald, Theory of simple liquids: withapplications to soft matter, Academic Press, 2013 (2013)

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    Meunier, A

    V . Meunier, A. G. Souza Filho, E. B. Barros, M. S. Dresselhaus, Physical properties of low-dimensionalsp2-based carbon nanostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) 025005 (2016). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.025005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.025005 2016

  36. [36]

    M. S. Ribeiro, A. L. Pascoini, W. G. Knupp, I. Camps, Effects of surface functionalization on the electronic and structural properties of carbon nanotubes: A computational approach, Appl. Surf. Sci. 426 (2017) 781–787 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.07.162

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.07.162 2017

  37. [37]

    G. L. Miessler, P . J. Fischer, D. A. Tarr, Inorganic chemistry, 5th Edition, Pearson, 2014 (2014)

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    A. C. Reber, S. N. Khanna, Superatoms: electronic and geometric effects on reactivity, Accounts Chem. Res. 50 (2017) 255–263 (2017). doi:10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00464

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00464 2017

  39. [39]

    Zavareh, Z

    S. Zavareh, Z. Farrokhzad, F. Darvishi, Modification of zeolite 4A for use as an adsorbent for glyphosate and as an antibacterial agent for water, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 155 (2018) 1–8 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.02.043

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.02.043 2018

  40. [40]

    Krishnamoorthy, B

    R. Krishnamoorthy, B. Govindan, F. Banat, V . Sagadevan, M. Purushothaman, P . L. Show, Date pits activated carbon for divalent lead ions removal, J. Biosci. Bioeng. 128 (2019) 88–97 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.jbiosc.2018.12.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbiosc.2018.12.011 2019

  41. [41]

    J. C. Diel, D. S. P . Franco, I. d. S. Nunes, H. A. Pereira, K. S. Moreira, T. A. de L. Burgo, E. L. Foletto, G. L. Dotto, Carbon nanotubes impregnated with metallic nanoparticles and their application as an adsorbent for the glyphosate removal in an aqueous matrix, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021) 105178 (2021). doi:10.1016/j.jece.2021.105178

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jece.2021.105178 2021

  42. [42]

    J. F. Van der Maelen, Topological analysis of the electron density in the carbonyl complexes M(CO)8(M = Ca, Sr, Ba), Organometallics 39 (2019) 132–141 (2019). doi:10.1021/acs.organomet.9b00699

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.organomet.9b00699 2019

  43. [43]

    C. F. Matta, R. J. Boyd, The Quantum Theory of Atoms in Molecules: From Solid State to DNA and Drug Design, John Wiley & Sons, 2007 (2007). 12 Interactions between ionized glyphosate and carbon nanotube

    work page 2007

  44. [44]

    J. A. Cabeza, J. F. Van der Maelen, S. García-Granda, Topological analysis of the electron density in the N-heterocyclic carbene triruthenium cluster [ Ru3(µ − H)2(µ3 − MeImCH )(CO)9] (Me2 Im = 1,3-dimethylimidazol-2-ylidene), Organometallics 28 (2009) 3666–3672 (2009). doi:10.1021/om9000617

    work page doi:10.1021/om9000617 2009

  45. [45]

    Koumpouras, J

    K. Koumpouras, J. A. Larsson, Distinguishing between chemical bonding and physical binding using electron localization function (ELF), J. Phys. Condens. Matter 32 (2020) 315502 (2020). doi:10.1088/1361-648X/ab7fd8

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-648x/ab7fd8 2020

  46. [46]

    Khartabil, A

    H. Khartabil, A. Rajamani, C. Lefebvre, J. Pilmé, E. Hénon, A 30-year journey towards an accelerated scheme for visualizing ELF basins in molecules, J. Comput. Chem. 46 (2025) e70146 (2025). doi:10.1002/jcc.70146

    work page doi:10.1002/jcc.70146 2025

  47. [47]

    Michalski, A

    M. Michalski, A. J. Gordon, S. Berski, Topological analysis of the electron localisation function (ELF) applied to the electronic structure of oxaziridine: the nature of N-O bond, Struct. Chem. 30 (2019) 2181–2189 (2019). doi:10.1007/s11224-019-01407-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11224-019-01407-9 2019

  48. [48]

    D. D. Nguyen, Z. Cang, G.-W. Wei, A review of mathematical representations of biomolecular data, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22 (2020) 4343–4367 (2020). doi:10.1039/C9CP06554G

    work page doi:10.1039/c9cp06554g 2020

  49. [49]

    Cheng, A

    H. Cheng, A. C. Cooper, G. P . Pez, M. K. Kostov, P . Piotrowski, S. J. Stuart, Molecular dynamics simulations on the effects of diameter and chirality on hydrogen adsorption in single walled carbon nanotubes, J. Phys. Chem. B 109 (2005) 3780–3786 (2005). doi:10.1021/jp045358m

    work page doi:10.1021/jp045358m 2005

  50. [50]

    H. T. Silva, L. C. S. Faria, T. A. Aversi-Ferreira, I. Camps, (DATASET+VIDEOS) Computational study of interactions between ionized glyphosate and carbon nanotube: An alternative for mitigating environmental contamination. doi:10.5281/zenodo.16994309

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16994309