Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Open-Shell Molecules as Sensitive Probes of Spin-Orbit-Controlled Surface Electronic Structure

T0 review · 3 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 Spin-orbit coupling is essential to reproduce the vibrational spectrum of nitric oxide on UO2(111), because it suppresses an artificial overhybridization between NO's frontier orbitals and uranium 5f states.

desk verdict Solid benchmark paper: SOC shifts NO stretch on UO2 by 74 cm^-1 with a clean CO control, but the no-SOC magnetic reference and missing data artifacts need tightening before the fine print is fully trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28797 v1 pith:T65L5ASF submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Solange Mariel Di Napoli , Alexei Nefedov , María Andrea Barral , Gustavo E. Murgida , Ana María Llois , Christof Wöll , M. Verónica Ganduglia-Pirovano , Verónica Laura Vildosola This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords open-shellmoleculeNOadsorptionUO2(111)spin-orbitcouplinginfraredreflection-absorptionspectroscopyhybriddensityfunctionalnon-collinearmagnetismdispersioninteractions
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 combines infrared reflection-absorption spectroscopy with hybrid density functional calculations to argue that spin-orbit coupling is the decisive ingredient in NO adsorption on UO2(111). Without spin-orbit coupling, the theory predicts an artificial overhybridization between NO's unpaired π* electron and the uranium 5f states, pushing the N-O stretch down by 74 cm−1 from experiment; including it reproduces the measured 1860 cm−1 band within a few cm−1. The paper also attributes the broad asymmetric band and the 1825 cm−1 shoulder at monolayer coverage to dispersion-driven intermolecular coupling between NO molecules, not to surface defects. If the argument holds, open-shell molecules become sensitive quantitative probes of spin-orbit-controlled surface electronic structure, and NO/UO2(111) becomes a demanding benchmark for electronic-structure methods.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the interaction between NO's singly occupied π* orbital—whose small HOMO-LUMO gap makes it electronically soft—and the strongly correlated, spin-orbit-split uranium 5f states of UO2. The paper shows that including spin-orbit coupling in a non-collinear hybrid-functional description suppresses what would otherwise be an artificial overlap between these two manifolds, changing the interface from overhybridization to weak molecular chemisorption. A second piece of machinery is the vibrational analysis: the N-O stretch is not an isolated internal mode but is dynamically coupled to uranium and surface-oxygen displacements, so the measured frequency encodes both the inter

What would settle it

Run the same NO/UO2(111) system with a method that treats uranium 5f electrons beyond the chosen hybrid functional—for instance an embedding or self-energy approach—and compare the N-O stretch with and without spin-orbit coupling. If the without-SOC frequency remains near 1860 cm−1 instead of dropping to about 1786 cm−1, the overhybridization is a method artifact. An experimental cross-check would be to adsorb NO on a surface with the same geometry but no 5f states, such as ThO2(111), where the paper's mechanism predicts a much smaller spin-orbit sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the experimentally observed N-O stretching frequency of NO adsorbed on UO2(111), about 1860 cm−1, is reproduced only when the calculation includes spin-orbit coupling together with non-collinear magnetism and hybrid exchange. Spin-orbit coupling reshapes the uranium 5f manifold and suppresses an otherwise artificial covalent hybridization between the NO π* orbital and the 5f states; without it the N-U bond shortens, the N-O bond weakens, and the stretch frequency drops by 74 cm−1 (148 cm−1 in a collinear treatment). In contrast, the closed-shell molecule CO shifts by only about 3 cm−1 under the same spin-orbit switch, showing that NO's open-shell frontier orbita

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation rests on the assumption that the spin-orbit-free calculation overhybridizes NO with uranium 5f states for the physical reason the paper gives, rather than because of an artifact of the chosen functional, magnetic initialization, or a particular 5f occupation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the full non-collinear hybrid level with spin-orbit coupling, the calculated N-O stretch frequencies for top-like and bridge-like (1×1) adsorption are 1862 and 1856 cm−1, matching experiment to within a few cm−1.
  • Disabling spin-orbit coupling lowers the top-like stretch frequency by 74 cm−1, and using a collinear description lowers it by 148 cm−1, so both non-collinearity and spin-orbit coupling are required.
  • The 1825 cm−1 shoulder is assigned to collective N-O stretch modes generated by dispersion-driven intermolecular coupling, not to oxygen vacancies or NO− formation.
  • Closed-shell CO on UO2(111) changes by only about 3 cm−1 when spin-orbit coupling is switched on, so open-shell NO is a far more sensitive vibrational probe of 5f relativistic effects.
  • Dispersion corrections are needed to reproduce the distribution of infrared intensity across collective modes; without them, oscillator strength concentrates into a single in-phase stretch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the paper's logic predicts that other open-shell diatomics (O2, CH, OH) on UO2(111) will show spin-orbit-induced vibrational shifts that scale with their frontier-orbital gaps, with smaller-gap molecules shifting more than CO.
  • Inference: because the N-O stretch is dynamically coupled to substrate atoms, the 74 cm−1 shift carries information about surface force constants and U-N phonon coupling, not just bond weakening; in principle it could be inverted to probe the surface mechanical response.
  • Inference: if the SOC-suppression mechanism is general, open-shell adsorbates on other 5f/4f correlated oxides should act as local, surface-sensitive reporters of relativistic electronic structure, with the strongest effects on surfaces with localized, spin-orbit-split f states.
  • Inference: the collective-mode explanation implies a coverage-dependent experimental signature—isolated low-coverage NO should show mainly the ~1860 cm−1 band, while the 1825 cm−1 shoulder and asymmetric broadening should grow only as the monolayer saturates.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines IRRAS measurements of NO adsorbed on UO2(111) with a systematic DFT method ladder (PBE+U CL, HSE06 CL, HSE06 NCL, HSE06+SOC NCL). The central claim is that reproducing the experimental N–O stretching frequency near 1860 cm^-1 requires non-collinear magnetism and, crucially, spin–orbit coupling, which suppresses an artificial overhybridization between the NO frontier orbitals and uranium 5f states. The authors further attribute the broad asymmetric monolayer spectrum to dispersion-driven intermolecular interactions and compare NO with CO to argue that open-shell molecules amplify spin-orbit-induced substrate effects. The paper includes a substantial set of calculations, vibrational analysis in multiple supercells, magnetic-configuration sampling, and intermolecular-interaction tests.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a valuable benchmark system and a clear demonstration that spin–orbit coupling can qualitatively change adsorbate vibrational properties on correlated actinide surfaces. The comparison between open-shell NO and closed-shell CO is a compelling diagnostic idea, and the experimental/theoretical combination is well matched. The method ladder is internally consistent, and the SOC shift is not an artifact of the uniform frequency scaling, since the scaling factors in Table S1 are nearly identical for the HSE06 variants. The study also gives useful attention to lateral interactions and collective modes. However, the central attribution of the 74 cm^-1 shift to SOC alone is currently not fully established because the SOC-on and SOC-off calculations do not share the same non-collinear magnetic state.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 2 and Table S2] The 74 cm^-1 shift between HSE06 (NCL) and HSE06+SOC (NCL) is the load-bearing evidence for the abstract's central claim. Yet the two calculations converge to different non-collinear magnetic states: in Table S2, U3 changes from (1.65, 0.03, 0.14) μB to (1.40, 0.00, 0.48) μB or (0.29, 0.43, 1.36) μB depending on SAXIS, and the NO moment also reorients. No total energy is reported for the no-SOC NCL row, so it is unclear whether that solution is the ground magnetic state of the no-SOC functional. The attribution of the entire shift to SOC is therefore not yet justified; it could partly reflect a metastable or non-representative magnetic configuration. Please provide no-SOC NCL calculations initialized from the SOC magnetic states, and/or a systematic scan of no-SOC magnetic configurations with reported vibrational frequencies.
  2. [SI Sections 6 and 7] The robustness discussion states that variations in magnetic configurations and NO spin orientations leave the N–O stretching frequencies 'essentially unchanged', but no numerical frequencies are reported for these variations. Figures S7 and S8 show only energies. Moreover, this robustness check appears to be performed within the HSE06+SOC framework, not for the no-SOC case that is central to the SOC-on/off comparison. The true 3-k non-collinear order of UO2 also requires a larger magnetic cell than the 1×1 cell used for the central numbers. To support the claim that the 74 cm^-1 shift is SOC-specific rather than magnetic-state-specific, the authors should tabulate frequencies for each magnetic configuration and each method level, including the no-SOC NCL case.
  3. [Fig. 2 and PDOS interpretation] The mechanistic conclusion that SOC removes 'artificial overhybridization' is inferred from the PDOS overlap in Fig. 2a–c. Since the no-SOC NCL and SOC NCL calculations differ in their magnetic moments, the reduced overlap could reflect the different U3 moment orientation rather than spin–orbit coupling itself. A quantitative measure of hybridization, or a comparison of PDOS for a fixed magnetic state with SOC on/off, would strengthen the causal interpretation. Without this, the claim that SOC specifically suppresses overhybridization remains plausible but not uniquely established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2 vs Table S2] The HSE06 (CL) scaled frequency is listed as 1714 cm^-1 in Table 2 but 1712 cm^-1 in Table S2. Please reconcile.
  2. [Table S1] The scaling factor λ is given for PBE+U (CL), HSE06 (CL), and HSE06+SOC (NCL), but not for HSE06 (NCL) without SOC, which is used for the key no-SOC row in Table 2. Please clarify which λ is applied and whether the gas-phase HSE06 (NCL) frequency was computed.
  3. [Data availability] The Data availability statement contains a placeholder DOI. A working identifier should be provided.
  4. [General] The phrase 'the calculated N–O stretching frequencies remain essentially unchanged' in the main text should be accompanied by a table or explicit values in the SI; the current statement is not verifiable from the figures alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central SOC-induced frequency shift is a direct first-principles on/off comparison, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that spin–orbit coupling is essential to reproduce the N–O stretching frequency of NO on UO2(111). The key quantitative evidence is Table 2: HSE06(NCL) gives 1788 cm⁻¹ and HSE06+SOC(NCL) gives 1862 cm⁻¹, a 74 cm⁻¹ shift, with the experimental band at 1860 cm⁻¹. This comparison is obtained by turning SOC on and off within the same non-collinear HSE06 framework; no parameter is fitted to the NO/UO2 adsorption data. The only calibration factor, λ = ν_exp,gas/ν_calc,gas, is determined from isolated gas-phase NO (Table S1) and is nearly identical for the HSE06 and HSE06+SOC runs (0.908101 vs 0.907995), so it cannot manufacture the 74 cm⁻¹ difference. Thus the agreement with experiment is a genuine prediction, not an input. The paper's magnetic robustness checks (SI Sections 6 and 7, Figs. S7 and S8) are not fully quantitative—they do not tabulate frequencies for each magnetic configuration—but the concern they raise is about whether the no-SOC state is the correct reference magnetic state, which is a physical/methodological validity issue, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces the conclusion to its own inputs. The self-citation to Ref. 14 for UO2 lattice parameters and the non-collinear setup is a normal methodological reference; it does not carry the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from it. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not introduce new physical entities. It relies on standard DFT approximations, a per-method gas-phase frequency scaling factor, and assumptions about the UO2 surface and magnetic representation. The main free parameters are the scaling factors and the PBE+U Ueff used for comparison; the HSE06+SOC(NCL) results do not fit any parameter to the adsorbed N–O frequency.

free parameters (3)
  • Gas-phase scaling factor λ (HSE06) = 0.908101 (CL), 0.907995 (SOC/NCL)
    Ratio of experimental gas-phase ν(NO)=1886 cm^-1 to harmonic HSE06 value 2066 cm^-1; applied to all adsorbed hybrid frequencies.
  • Gas-phase scaling factor λ (PBE+U) = 0.974976
    Ratio for the PBE+U isolated-NO calculation; method-specific anharmonic scaling.
  • Ueff (PBE+U) = 4 eV
    Dudarev effective Hubbard parameter for U 5f in the PBE+U comparison; inherited from prior work (Ref 14), not central HSE06 results.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Harmonic approximation and finite-difference force constants give accurate enough vibrational frequencies.
    Invoked in SI Section 2 for all frequency calculations; anharmonic corrections are only applied globally via λ.
  • domain assumption The gas-phase scaling factor λ is transferable to the adsorbed NO molecule.
    Scaling in Table S1 implicitly assumes adsorption does not change the anharmonic correction; not directly tested.
  • domain assumption HSE06 with non-collinear magnetism and SOC accurately describes localized U 5f states and NO frontier orbitals.
    The entire SOC-suppression mechanism (Fig. 2) depends on this electronic-structure accuracy; no direct spectroscopic verification of the 5f manifold is provided.
  • domain assumption The UO2(111) surface used in experiment is stoichiometric and largely defect-free for the main-band interpretation.
    Authors rule out defects indirectly from prior CO IRRAS and from absence of NO- features, but no direct defect density measurement is given.
  • domain assumption Static 0 K calculations with representative non-collinear magnetic configurations approximate the 113 K paramagnetic experiment.
    They test several magnetic configurations and find small frequency variations, but temperature effects are not explicitly modeled.
  • domain assumption The VASP PAW implementation of non-collinear magnetism and SOC is quantitatively reliable for actinide 5f systems.
    All DFT results rely on this implementation; no cross-check with another code or with experiment beyond vibrational frequencies is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Open-Shell Molecules as Sensitive Probes of Spin-Orbit-Controlled Surface Electronic Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T65L5ASF

@misc{pith2026260728797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Open-Shell Molecules as Sensitive Probes of Spin-Orbit-Controlled Surface Electronic Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T65L5ASF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28797}
}
abstract

Open-shell molecules are highly sensitive probes of correlated oxide surfaces because their partially occupied frontier orbitals strongly amplify subtle changes in adsorbate-substrate hybridization. Combining infrared reflection-absorption spectroscopy with hybrid density functional theory including non-collinear magnetism and spin-orbit coupling, we show that inclusion of spin-orbit coupling is essential to reproduce the vibrational spectrum of NO adsorbed on UO$_2$(111) by suppressing an otherwise artificial overhybridization between the NO frontier orbitals and uranium 5f states. While spin-orbit coupling determines the position of the N-O stretching and, dispersion-driven intermolecular interactions account for its asymmetric broadening at monolayer coverage. These results establish open-shell molecules as sensitive probes of spin-orbit-controlled surface electronic structure and identify NO/UO$_2$(111) as a stringent benchmark for electronic-structure methods describing open-shell molecule-surface interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28797 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Calculated N–O stretching frequencies and corresponding IR intensities per NO molecule obtained using HSE06+SOC (NCL) for 1 ML NO overlayers on UO₂ (111) with different surface periodicities (1×1, 2×1, 3×1, and 2×2). Calculated IR intensities are first normalized per NO molecule and then scaled so that the highest calculated intensity equals unity. (b) IRRAS spectra recorded after saturation NO adsorption on UO₂… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optimized adsorption geometries with the corresponding charge-density difference (left) and the Projected Density of States (PDOS, right). Panels (a-c) show NO adsorbed on UO₂(111) calculated using (a) HSE06 (CL), (b) HSE06 (NCL), and (c) HSE06+SOC (NCL). Panel (d) shows CO adsorbed on UO₂(111) calculated using HSE06+SOC (NCL). Uranium, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen atoms are shown in dark grey, light grey, brown, an… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references

  1. [1]

    J. E. Nitschke, D. M. Janas, S. Ponzoni, M. Capra, E. Molteni, A. Picone, A. Giampietri, A. Ferretti, S. Ma, A. Brambilla et al, Nanoscale 17, 17137 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    D. M. Janas, A. Windischbacher, A. Sala, V. Feyer, I. Cojocariu, M. Gruber, M. Bouatou, A. Droghetti, P. Puschnig, G. Zamborlini et al., Small 22, 13 (2026)

    2026

  3. [3]

    Mannini, F

    M. Mannini, F. Pineider, P. Sainctavit, Ch. Danieli, E. Otero, C. Sciancalepore, A. M. Talarico, M-A Arrio, A. Cornia, D. Gatteschi, et al., Nature Mater 8, 194 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    B. W. Heinrich, L. Braun, J. I. Pascual and K. J. Franke, Nano Lett. 15, 4024 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Mannini, F

    M. Mannini, F. Pineider, C. Danieli, F. Totti, L. Sorace, Ph. Sainctavit, M.-A. Arrio, E. Otero, L. Joly, J. C. Cezar et al., Nature 468, 417-421 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Shiotari, H

    A. Shiotari, H. Koshida, and H. Okuyama, Surface Science Reports 76, 100500 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Wang and C

    Y. Wang and C. Wöll, Chem. Soc. Rev. 46, 1875 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Santini, R

    P. Santini, R. Leímanski and P. Erdos, Advances in Physics 48, 537(1999)

    1999

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    S. B. Wilkins, R. Caciuffo, C. Detlefs, J. Rebizant, E. Colineau, F. Wastin, G. H. Lander, Phys. Rev. B 73, 060406(R) (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Laskowski, G

    R. Laskowski, G. K. H. Madsen, P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B 69, 140408(R) (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    B. C. Fraxer, G. Shirane, D. E. Cox and C. E. Olsen, Phys. Rev. 140, 1448 (1965)

    1965

  4. [12]

    M. Xu, Y. Gao, Y. Wang and C. Wöll, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 12, 3649 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    P. G. Lustemberg, C. Yang, Y. Wang, C. Wöll, and M. V. Ganduglia-Pirovano, J. Chem. Phys. 159, 034704 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Idriss, M

    H. Idriss, M. A. Barral, S. M. Di Napoli, G. E. Murgida, E. Sauter, A. M. Llois, M. V. Ganduglia-Pirovano, V. L. Vildosola and C. Wöll, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 27, 2405 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria and M. Ernzerhof, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 8207 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    A. V. Krukau, O. A. Vydrov, A. F. Izmaylov and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 224106 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich and H. Krieg, J. Chem. Phys. 132, 154104 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Grimme, S

    S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich and L. Goerigk, J. Comput. Chem. 32, 1456 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    See Supporting Information at [URL] for experimental and computational details, which includes Refs. [20-30]

  12. [20]

    C. Yang, H. Idriss, Y. Wang and C. Wöll, C. Acc. Chem. Res. 57, 3316 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Y. Wang, A. Glenz, M. Muhler, and C. Wöll, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80, 113108 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Yang and C

    C. Yang and C. Wöll, Surf. Sci. 749, 122550 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758(1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    Hobbs, G

    D. Hobbs, G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 62, 11 556 (2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    Steiner, S

    S. Steiner, S. Khmelevskyi, M. Marsmann, and G. Kresse, Phys. Rev. B 93, 224425 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Cryst. 44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    V. Wang, N. Xu, J. -C. Liu, G. Tang, and W. -T. Geng, Computer Physics Communications 267, 108033 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Ma and S

    P.-W. Ma and S. L. Dudarev, Phys. Rev. B 91, 054420 (2015). Supporting Information Open-Shell Molecules as Sensitive Probes of Spin–Orbit-Controlled Surface Electronic Structure Solange Mariel Di Napoli #1,2, Alexei Nefedov #3, María Andrea Barral #1,2, Gustavo E. Murgida#1,2,...

    2015

  23. [31]

    Experimental Methods The IRRAS measurements were performed in the advanced ultrahigh -vacuum (UHV) apparatus “THEO”, which integrates a state -of-the-art Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer (Bruker Vertex 80v) with a UHV system (Prevac, Poland) comprising multiple i...

    2000

  24. [32]

    The valence configurations included 14 electrons for U (6s26p65f27s26d2), 6 for O (2s22p4), and 5 for N (2s22p3)

    Computational details and models First-principles density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed within the projector augmented -wave (PAW) formalism, as implemented in the Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP) [23-24]. The valence configurations included 14 ...

  25. [33]

    The relaxed adsorption structures together with the corresponding collective vibrational modes involving the NO molecules are shown in Fig

    Collective modes in larger supercells To investigate the collective vibrational modes of the NO adlayer, 1×2, 1×3, and 2×2 supercells with one monolayer of adsorbed NO were considered. The relaxed adsorption structures together with the corresponding collective vibrational mod...

  26. [34]

    To the best of our knowledge, no experimental value for the gas -phase HOMO–LUMO gap of NO has been reported

    Effect of the level of theory on the adsorption properties of NO on UO₂(111) Before discussing the adsorption properties of NO on UO ₂(111), it is instructive to examine how the different levels of electronic -structure theory describe the isolated NO and CO molecules . To the...

    1924

  27. [35]

    Simple Mechanical Model for the Vibrational Shift A qualitative interpretation of the N –O stretching vibrational response can be obtained by considering the interplay between the intrinsic N –O bond stiffness and the restoring force associated with the adsorbate–substrate int...

  28. [36]

    Figure S7 summarizes the corresponding total energies relative to the lowest-energy magnetic configuration for each adsorption structure

    Influence of the magnetic structure of UO2 on NO adsorption To evaluate the sensitivity of the adsorption energetics to the magnetic structure of the UO 2 substrate, we also considered several non -collinear magnetic configurations of the slab for each adsorption geometry disc...

  29. [37]

    I_CONSTRAINED_M = 4

    Magnetic coupling between the molecule and the UO2 To assess the influence of the magnetic coupling between the magnetic moments of the NO molecule and the surface uranium atom (U 3), we performed constrained non -collinear calculations for several fixed orientations of the NO...

  30. [38]

    During the structural relaxations, the positions of the N atoms were kept fixed for NO and, analogously, the positions of the C atoms were fixed for CO

    Intermolecular Interaction between NO molecules To further investigate the sources of the intermolecular interaction, we performed calculations for pairs of NO and CO molecules in vacuum while systematically varying the intermolecular separation. During the structural relaxati...

Pith tools

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