Light-induced spin-polarized desorption of Rb atoms from Co surfaces

Atsushi Hatakeyama; Kanta Asakawa; Kaori Niki; Keisuke Hara; Naoki Tanabe; Oki Watanabe; Shuji Kamada

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Light-induced spin-polarized desorption of Rb atoms from Co surfaces

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that UV-pulse desorption of Rb atoms from a spin-polarized Co(110) surface is non-thermal and leaves the desorbed atoms spin-polarized, with the polarization direction matching the minority-spin direction of the cobalt fi

desk verdict A clean, controlled observation of magnetization-dependent spin polarization in Rb desorbed from Co(110), with an untested F=2 hyperfine assumption that should be flagged rather than presumed. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.08442 v3 pith:4SQKKSGX submitted 2026-01-13 physics.atom-ph

Kanta Asakawa , Naoki Tanabe , Oki Watanabe , Shuji Kamada , Keisuke Hara , Kaori Niki , Atsushi Hatakeyama This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-ph

keywords light-induceddesorptionspinpolarizationRbatomsferromagneticsurfacecobaltthinfilmtransferspin-selectiveopticaldetectionDFTcalculations

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 tries to establish that light-induced desorption of Rb atoms from a ferromagnetic cobalt surface is not a thermal evaporation process, and that the desorbed atoms carry a net spin polarization inherited from the surface. Using circularly polarized probe light tuned to the Rb D2 F=3→F'=4 transition, the authors measure a helicity-dependent absorption asymmetry that flips sign when the sample magnetization is reversed. For magnetization parallel to the probe axis, the averaged magnetic quantum number of F=3 atoms is ⟨mF=3⟩=+0.024±0.004; for anti-parallel, −0.024±0.003. The polarization direction corresponds to the minority-spin electrons of cobalt, and DFT calculations show that the Rb 5s electron is donated to the substrate while Rb gains electrons from minority-spin Co 3d states near the Fermi level, supporting a mechanism in which UV-excited, spin-polarized electrons transfer to the adsorbate before desorption. If correct, this demonstrates a measurable spin-transfer channel between a magnetic surface and a desorbing atom, with implications for spin-dependent catalysis and polarized atomic sources.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is spin-selective optical detection: a circularly polarized probe laser tuned to the Rb D2 F=3→F′=4 transition measures absorption by desorbed atoms, and the ratio Ides,σ+/Ides,σ− between the two helicities is converted, under an assumed Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution and Knudsen cosine law, into the averaged magnetic quantum number ⟨mF=3⟩. The physical object carrying the argument is the spin-polarized charge-transfer desorption step: DFT shows Rb donates its 5s electron to the Co substrate, and UV excitation of minority-spin Co 3d electrons near the Fermi level transfers them to the adsorbate, imprinting the surface's minority-spin direction onto the desorbing at

What would settle it

Perform an independent measurement of the desorbed-atom spin polarization, for example by deflecting the desorbed Rb beam in a Stern-Gerlach magnet or by probing the unmeasured F=2 state with a second laser. If the Stern-Gerlach measurement yields a different polarization magnitude or sign than the optical ⟨mF=3⟩, or if F=2 atoms are found to be unpolarized while F=3 atoms are polarized, then the paper's conclusion that spin transfer polarizes the full desorbed population would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that Rb atoms desorbing from a fcc-Co(110) surface under pulsed 355-nm UV light emerge spin-polarized, and that this polarization traces to spin-polarized charge transfer from the cobalt substrate during desorption. The desorption is non-thermal: the mean surface-normal velocity of desorbed atoms decreases with coverage (from ~500 m/s to ~357 m/s) and lies well above room-temperature thermal expectations. The measured helicity ratio Ides,σ+/Ides,σ− deviates from unity in opposite directions for opposite sample magnetization; an estimated stray field of ~1.9 µT gives Zeeman shifts negligible against Doppler broadening, so the asymmetry is attributed to g

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of the measured helicity asymmetry into a spin polarization assumes that the asymmetry is caused solely by true spin polarization of the desorbed atoms, that the unmeasured F=2 population is polarized to the same degree as F=3, and that the desorption velocity distribution is Maxwell-Boltzmann with a Knudsen cosine angular profile — if any of these fail, the reported ⟨mF=3⟩ values would not faithfully represent the total spin polarization of all desorbed atoms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Non-thermal, electronically driven desorption: the observed decrease in mean velocity with coverage matches the behavior seen for K/Cr2O3 and indicates that light-induced desorption of Rb from Co proceeds via substrate-to-adsorbate electron transfer rather than thermal evaporation.
Spin transfer during desorption is measurable: the helicity asymmetry that flips with magnetization direction demonstrates that the desorbed atoms carry a spin polarization that follows the surface's minority-spin direction.
The method provides a general tool: the same spin-selective optical detection can be extended to other alkali–ferromagnet combinations, giving access to the spin state of desorbed species in surface chemical reactions.
Catalysis relevance: spin-polarized charge transfer during desorption connects to spin-promoted catalytic reactions such as oxygen evolution and ammonia synthesis on ferromagnetic surfaces.
Potential polarized atomic source: light-induced spin-polarized desorption from a magnetized surface could serve as a compact source of spin-polarized Rb (or other alkali) atoms.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the measured ⟨mF=3⟩≈0.024 is far below the +0.40 expected if every desorbing atom received an exclusively Fermi-level minority-spin electron, suggesting either deeper less-polarized Co states participate, partial spin relaxation occurs during the desorption flight, or a substantial fraction of desorbed atoms come from a Rb multilayer without direct contact with Co — a distinction that c
Inference: if confirmed, the effect may serve as a way to produce spin-polarized atomic beams without external magnetic fields or optical pumping — the magnetized surface itself acts as the polarizer. Measuring the F=2 hyperfine state and the total atomic flux would show whether the polarization survives in a practical beam source.
Inference: the non-thermal, electronically driven desorption signature suggests the desorption cross section depends on the local electronic structure of the adsorption site; comparing Rb on Co(110) with other crystal faces or with a non-ferromagnetic metal would separate genuine spin-transfer effects from generic substrate-mediated desorption.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is my take. The paper reports a new experimental observation: pulsed UV desorption of Rb from a magnetized Co(110) film produces desorbed atoms that absorb left and right circularly polarized probe light differently, and that asymmetry reverses when the magnetization is reversed and disappears on a MgO substrate. That is a clean, controlled result, and the sign of the asymmetry indicates the atoms are polarized along the minority-spin direction of the Co. The method itself comes from the authors' earlier Fe3O4 work, so the novelty is the application to a ferromagnetic metal and the magnetization-geometry control, but the ferromagnet result is genuinely new.

What the paper does well: the controls are appropriate — bare MgO, magnetization reversal, and a stray-field estimate that is properly quantified (1.9 µT, negligible against ~100 MHz Doppler width). The DFT calculation and the proposed electron-transfer mechanism are reasonable, and the replication data are available.

Soft spots, in proportion. The quantitative conversion from helicity asymmetry to ⟨mF=3⟩ relies on assuming a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution and Knudsen cosine law while simultaneously arguing the desorption is non-thermal. That affects the absolute polarization value but not the sign. A larger issue is that the probe detects only the F=3 hyperfine state; the F=2 population is unmeasured. The authors assert the spin transfer is 'presumably independent of hyperfine status.' That is plausible, because hyperfine coupling is weak compared to the desorption energy, but it is an assumption, not a measured fact. If F=2 atoms are less polarized or oppositely polarized, the ensemble polarization could be substantially different. The paper would be stronger if the authors flagged this as an open question rather than a presumption. Finally, the DFT predicted ⟨mF=3⟩=0.40, about 17 times the observed 0.024; the explanations (excitation from deeper states, multilayer desorption, spin relaxation) are post hoc and not tested. That does not undermine the qualitative claim but it does weaken the quantitative mechanism picture.

Bottom line: the central qualitative observation — spin-polarized light-induced desorption from a spin-polarized Co surface with sign tied to magnetization — is well-supported by the controls. The paper is honest about its assumptions and worth a serious referee. Who it is for: surface scientists and atomic physicists working on spin-dependent desorption, spin transfer in catalysis, and polarized atomic sources. I would send it to peer review and ask the authors to either measure the F=2 population and the velocity distribution directly, or clearly label those as untested assumptions.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of Rb atoms desorbed by pulsed UV light from a magnetized fcc-Co(110) thin film grown on MgO. Using helicity-dependent absorption of a circularly polarized probe beam tuned to the Rb D2 F=3→F'=4 transition, the authors measure a helicity asymmetry in the desorbed-atom flux. The asymmetry reverses when the sample magnetization direction is reversed, and no asymmetry is observed for a bare MgO substrate. The authors interpret the asymmetry as spin polarization of the desorbed F=3 Rb atoms, with ⟨mF=3⟩ = +0.024±0.004 (parallel) and −0.024±0.003 (anti-parallel). They combine this with DFT calculations of the Rb/Co(110) surface and argue that desorption is non-thermal and proceeds through spin-polarized charge transfer from Co 3d minority-spin states near the Fermi level, implying spin transfer from the surface to the desorbed atoms. The paper also reports a time-dependent decrease of the mean desorption velocity, which is interpreted as evidence for a non-thermal, coverage-dependent desorption mechanism.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is a rare direct observation of spin-polarized desorption from a ferromagnetic surface and would provide evidence for spin-transfer processes relevant to spin-dependent catalysis and to the development of spin-polarized atomic sources. The experimental design has notable strengths: the MgO(110) substrate control rules out a purely optical or instrumental helicity asymmetry, and the magnetization-reversal test demonstrates that the sign of the asymmetry follows the magnetization direction. The stray-field estimate in Eq. (5) is a reasonable quantitative check. The paper also makes its data openly available. The main limitation is that only the F=3 hyperfine state is detected, and the authors explicitly acknowledge that the F=2 polarization is unknown. The load-bearing extrapolation from F=3 to all desorbed atoms is presented as an untested 'presumably' statement, which needs to be addressed or the claims need to be narrowed.

major comments (2)

[Results, final paragraph (F=2 caveat)] The central claim that 'the spins of the desorbed Rb atoms were polarized' is supported only for atoms detected in the F=3 hyperfine state. The final paragraph concedes that the F=2 polarization was not measured and asserts it is 'presumably independent of hyperfine status.' This is an untested assumption. If F=2 atoms are unpolarized or oppositely polarized, the ensemble polarization could be much smaller or even zero, weakening the spin-transfer conclusion. The MgO control and magnetization reversal in §3(c) do not address this. Please either measure the F=2 channel (e.g., by probing the F=2→F'=2 or F'=3 transitions) or explicitly revise the abstract and conclusions to state that spin polarization was observed for F=3 atoms, with the F=2 contribution unknown. As written, the abstract overclaims.
[Eq. (4) and Fig. 3(d)] The quantitative values ⟨mF=3⟩ = ±0.024 are obtained by assuming a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution and Knudsen cosine law in converting the time-of-flight absorption signal into flux and velocity, even though the paper argues the desorption is non-thermal. The sign and the magnetization reversal are robust to this assumption, but the cited magnitude is model-dependent. Please state this limitation explicitly when quoting the numerical values, or provide a sensitivity analysis using alternative velocity distributions. This is not a fatal issue for the qualitative conclusion, but it matters for the quantitative comparison with the DFT-based expectation of 0.40 discussed in the text.

minor comments (4)

[Paragraph following Eq. (3)] Text reads 't1 = 0.47 µs and t1 = 40.47 µs'; the second limit should be t2.
[DFT methods paragraph] Several typos: 'V ASP' for VASP; 'conducted performed'; 'a Monkhorst-Pack 3 × 3 × 1 grid of k-points grid'; 'with and a vacuum region'; 'based this equation' later in the text. These should be corrected.
[Fig. 3(a)] The ordinate label 'Ides (mm)' is unconventional; since Ides is defined as an integral of A(t)v_z(t)dt, the units are indeed length, but the label should be clarified, e.g., 'Ides (arb. units, proportional to mm)' to avoid confusion.
[Last paragraph of Results] The sentence 'Our results may well-represent the spin polarization of all desorbed atoms' is hedged but still relies on the untested F=2 assumption. See major comment 1; this sentence should be revised together with the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-polarization claim is carried by an external helicity asymmetry; the M-B temperature fit and F=2 extrapolation are calibration and acknowledged limitation, not definitional reductions.

full rationale

The central observable is the helicity asymmetry Ides,σ+/Ides,σ− (Fig. 3c), which is an external measurement: it deviates from unity, reverses with magnetization direction, is absent for the MgO control, and is shown to be unaffected by the estimated 1.9 µT stray field (Eq. 5, Zeeman shift ~55 kHz vs ~100 MHz Doppler width). The spin-polarization conclusion therefore does not reduce to a fitted parameter or to the DFT. The Maxwell-Boltzmann temperature used to convert the asymmetry into a quantitative ⟨mF=3⟩ is fitted to the independently measured mean velocity (Eq. 4), but this is calibration: the sign and direction of the polarization are already present in the raw ratio. The self-citation to Ref. [10] supplies the extraction method, but the assumptions are restated in the present text and the M-B approximation is also supported by an external reference [23]; no uniqueness theorem or forbidden alternative is imported. The acknowledged F=2 limitation ('presumably independent of hyperfine status') is a real assumption about representativeness of the F=3 measurement, and it should be weighed as an interpretive/correctness risk; however, it is not self-definitional because the F=3 asymmetry is not defined in terms of the total ensemble polarization. The DFT DOS is an independent calculation compared with the measurement, not fitted to it. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by construction, although one modest self-citation and one unverified hyperfine extrapolation prevent a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or exotic entities are introduced. The free parameters are: the M-B temperature fitted to the mean velocity (used in the ⟨mF=3⟩ extraction), the two-desorption-component breakpoint, and the integration window. The key domain assumptions are the M-B distribution assumption, the F=3→all-atoms extrapolation, and the single-velocity flux formula, each acknowledged in the text. The DFT mechanism (minority-spin electrons from Co 3d states transferred to Rb) is a mechanism hypothesis, not an ad hoc invention; it is grounded in the calculated DOS. The main 'fitting to data that is labeled prediction' risk is the M-B temperature: the same measured velocity determines both vz and the distribution used in the polarization extraction.

free parameters (3)

M-B distribution temperature = corresponds to vz = 500 m/s (≈1200 K) at 8×10^3 s, 357 m/s (≈615 K) at 3.2×10^4 s
The temperature of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is chosen to match the measured mean surface-normal velocity (eq. 4), then used to extract ⟨mF=3⟩. This is a per-measurement fit, not an externally measured temperature.
Steeper-rise breakpoint / two desorption components = ~8×10^3 s
The two-component desorption-cross-section description in §'Results' (linearly increasing Ides until ~8×10^3 s, then steeper) is a descriptive fit with no independent determination of the two cross-sections.
Integration limits in Ides (t1=0.47 µs, t2=40.47 µs) = t1=0.47 µs, t2=40.47 µs
Chosen to 'cover the entire peak and exclude the UV-laser-derived noise.' This window choice affects Ides values and ratios; reported as a fixed choice, not swept, and it is a manual data-selection choice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption fcc Co(110) film structure and magnetization direction are as prepared and stable during desorption
RHEED was done 'using another apparatus' and SQUID magnetization was measured on a separate sample; in situ XPS confirmed cleanliness but not magnetic state during the desorption measurement.
domain assumption A(t) is proportional to the density of desorbed atoms resonant with the probe light, and the flux formula Ides = ∫ A(t)·l/t dt is valid.
Equation (3) assumes a single velocity component vz = l/t and that the detected absorption measures local density of probe-resonant atoms with no velocity-dependent saturation of the optical transition. The paper does not discuss probe power broadening or optical pumping during the measurement.
domain assumption The desorbed velocity distribution is adequately described by a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for the purpose of extracting ⟨mF=3⟩, even though the desorption is non-thermal
The text states 'Even when desorption is non-thermal, the desorption velocity distribution can often be approximated by an M-B distribution [23]', citing Ref. 23. This is a modeling assumption used in the conversion, not a measured distribution.
domain assumption Spin polarization of the F=3 detected subset equals that of the full desorbed population
The paper says 'the amount of spin transferred to atoms that are desorbing is presumably independent of hyperfine status.' No measurement of F=2 atoms is provided; this is an unverified modeling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-induced spin-polarized desorption of Rb atoms from Co surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4SQKKSGX

@misc{pith2026260108442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-induced spin-polarized desorption of Rb atoms from Co surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4SQKKSGX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.08442}
}

read the original abstract

The spin polarization of Rb atoms undergoing light-induced desorption from a spin-polarized Co (110) surface was investigated. Desorption induced by pulsed UV-light irradiation was driven by a non-thermal mechanism and the spins of the desorbed Rb atoms were polarized. This implies spin transfer between the surface and the adsorbate during desorption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.08442 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. (a) Top view of the apparatus and (b) side view of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The time evolution of (a) the desorption intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The calculated DOS of the surface Co atoms and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references

[1]

Landolt and M

M. Landolt and M. Campagna, Demagnetization of the Ni(100) Surface by Hydrogen Adsorption, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 568 (1977)

1977
[2]

A. Cao, V. J. Bukas, V. Shadravan, Z. Wang, H. Li, J. Kibsgaard, I. Chorkendorﬀ, and J. K. Nørskov, A spin promotion eﬀect in catalytic ammonia synthesis, Nature communications 13, 2382 (2022)

2022
[3]

Cao and J

A. Cao and J. K. Nørskov, Spin eﬀects in chemisorption and catalysis, ACS Catalysis 13, 3456 (2023)

2023
[4]

Asakawa, Y

K. Asakawa, Y. Miura, N. Nagatsuka, K. Takeyasu, M. Matsumoto, and K. Fukutani, Electronic and spin structure of O-and H-adsorbed Fe 3O4(111) surfaces, Physical Review B 99, 085442 (2019)

2019
[5]

Kurahashi, X

M. Kurahashi, X. Sun, and Y. Yamauchi, Recovery of the half-metallicity of an Fe 3O4(100) surface by atomic hydrogen adsorption, Phys. Rev. B 81, 193402 (2010)

2010
[6]

G. S. Parkinson, N. Mulakaluri, Y. Losovyj, P. Jacobson, R. Pentcheva, and U. Diebold, Semiconductor–half metal transition at the Fe 3O4(001) surface upon hydrogen ad- sorption, Phys. Rev. B 82, 125413 (2010) . 6

2010
[7]

X. Ren, T. Wu, Y. Sun, Y. Li, G. Xian, X. Liu, C. Shen, J. Gracia, H.-J. Gao, H. Yang, et al., Spin- polarized oxygen evolution reaction under magnetic ﬁeld, Nature communications 12, 2608 (2021)

2021
[8]

Z. Fang, W. Zhao, T. Shen, D. Qiu, Y. Lv, X. Hou, and Y. Hou, Spin-modulated oxygen electrocatalysis, Precision Chemistry 1, 395 (2023)

2023

Show all 28 references

[9]

Ikeda, M

A. Ikeda, M. Matsumoto, S. Ogura, K. Fukutani, and T. Okano, Photostimulated desorption of Xe from Au(001) surfaces via transient Xe − formation, Phys. Rev. B 84, 155412 (2011)

2011
[10]

Asakawa, N

K. Asakawa, N. Tanabe, T. Kawauchi, K. Fukutani, and A. Hatakeyama, Optical and spin-selective time-of-ﬂight measurement of light-induced desorption of Rb from Fe3O4 surfaces, Scientiﬁc Reports 13, 14965 (2023)

2023
[11]

Zhang, A

K. Zhang, A. Cao, L. H. Wandall, J. Vernieres, J. Kib- sgaard, J. K. Nørskov, and I. Chorkendorﬀ, Spin- mediated promotion of Co catalysts for ammonia syn- thesis, Science 383, 1357 (2024)

2024
[12]

Asakawa, Y

K. Asakawa, Y. Tanaka, K. Uemura, N. Matsuzaka, K. Nishikawa, Y. Oguma, H. Usui, and A. Hatakeyama, Measurement of the temperature dependence of dwell time and spin relaxation probability of Rb atoms on paraﬃn surfaces using a beam-scattering method, Phys. Rev. A 104, 063106 (2021)

2021
[13]

Nukaga, M

Y. Nukaga, M. Ohtake, M. Futamoto, F. Kirino, N. Fujita, and N. Inaba, Structure and mag- netic properties of Co epitaxial thin ﬁlms grown on MgO single-crystal substrates, IEEE transactions on magnetics 45, 2519 (2009)

2009
[14]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals, Physical review B 47, 558 (1993)

1993
[15]

Kresse and D

G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseu- dopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Physical Review B 59, 1758 (1999)

1999
[16]

Hammer, L

B. Hammer, L. B. Hansen, and J. K. Nørskov, Improved adsorption energetics within density-functional theory using revised perdew-burke-ernzerhof functionals, Physi - cal Review B 59, 7413 (1999)

1999
[17]

P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

1994
[18]

H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Spe- cial points for brillouin-zone integrations, Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976)

1976
[19]

Grimme, J

S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, A consistent and accurate ab initio parametriza- tion of density functional dispersion correc- tion (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H-Pu, The Journal of Chemical Physics 132, 154104 (2010)

2010
[20]

Liu, H.-Y

J.-X. Liu, H.-Y. Su, D.-P. Sun, B.-Y. Zhang, and W.-X. Li, Crystallographic dependence of co activation on cobalt catalysts: Hcp versus fcc, Journal of the American Chemical Society 135, 16284 (2013)

2013
[21]

Wilde, I

M. Wilde, I. Beauport, F. Stuhl, K. Al-Shamery, and H.- J. Freund, Adsorption of potassium on Cr 2O3(0001) at ionic and metallic coverages and uv-laser-induced desorp- tion, Phys. Rev. B 59, 13401 (1999)

1999
[22]

Budker, W

D. Budker, W. Gawlik, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, V. V. Yashchuk, and A. Weis, Res- onant nonlinear magneto-optical eﬀects in atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1153 (2002)

2002
[23]

F. M. Zimmermann and W. Ho, Velocity dis- tributions of photochemically desorbed molecules, The Journal of chemical physics 100, 7700 (1994)

1994
[24]

Momma and F

K. Momma and F. Izumi, VESTA3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, Journal of Applied Crystallography 44, 1272 (2011)

2011
[25]

D. S. D. Gunn and S. J. Jenkins, Adsorbate mod- iﬁcation of the structural, electronic, and mag- netic properties of ferromagnetic fcc {110} surfaces, Phys. Rev. B 83, 115403 (2011)

2011
[26]

Hirose and E

E. Hirose and E. Torikai, Spin dependent scat- tering of cs atoms from ferromagnetic surfaces, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 310, 2740 (2007) , proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Magnetism

2007
[27]

Z. Bian, K. Kato, T. Ogoshi, Z. Cui, B. Sa, Y. Tsutsui, S. Seki, and M. Suda, Hybrid chi- ral MoS 2 layers for spin-polarized charge trans- port and spin-dependent electrocatalytic applications, Advanced Science 9, 2201063 (2022)

2022
[28]

Asakawa, Replication Data for: Light-induced spin-polarized desor ption (2025)

K. Asakawa, Replication Data for: Light-induced spin-polarized desor ption (2025)

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Landolt and M

M. Landolt and M. Campagna, Demagnetization of the Ni(100) Surface by Hydrogen Adsorption, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 568 (1977)

1977

[2] [2]

A. Cao, V. J. Bukas, V. Shadravan, Z. Wang, H. Li, J. Kibsgaard, I. Chorkendorﬀ, and J. K. Nørskov, A spin promotion eﬀect in catalytic ammonia synthesis, Nature communications 13, 2382 (2022)

2022

[3] [3]

Cao and J

A. Cao and J. K. Nørskov, Spin eﬀects in chemisorption and catalysis, ACS Catalysis 13, 3456 (2023)

2023

[4] [4]

Asakawa, Y

K. Asakawa, Y. Miura, N. Nagatsuka, K. Takeyasu, M. Matsumoto, and K. Fukutani, Electronic and spin structure of O-and H-adsorbed Fe 3O4(111) surfaces, Physical Review B 99, 085442 (2019)

2019

[5] [5]

Kurahashi, X

M. Kurahashi, X. Sun, and Y. Yamauchi, Recovery of the half-metallicity of an Fe 3O4(100) surface by atomic hydrogen adsorption, Phys. Rev. B 81, 193402 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

G. S. Parkinson, N. Mulakaluri, Y. Losovyj, P. Jacobson, R. Pentcheva, and U. Diebold, Semiconductor–half metal transition at the Fe 3O4(001) surface upon hydrogen ad- sorption, Phys. Rev. B 82, 125413 (2010) . 6

2010

[7] [7]

X. Ren, T. Wu, Y. Sun, Y. Li, G. Xian, X. Liu, C. Shen, J. Gracia, H.-J. Gao, H. Yang, et al., Spin- polarized oxygen evolution reaction under magnetic ﬁeld, Nature communications 12, 2608 (2021)

2021

[8] [8]

Z. Fang, W. Zhao, T. Shen, D. Qiu, Y. Lv, X. Hou, and Y. Hou, Spin-modulated oxygen electrocatalysis, Precision Chemistry 1, 395 (2023)

2023