Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Anomalous nuclear effects on ion charge state distribution in helium gas

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The charge-state distribution an ion settles into in helium gas depends on which isotope and which nuclear state it is in.

desk verdict Real and reproducible observation of nuclear-state-dependent charge state yields in helium gas, but the nuclear interpretation is not yet secure because impurity effects are not controlled and the 'universal' claim outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09364 v2 pith:IZVAVWS3 submitted 2025-01-16 physics.atom-ph nucl-ex

Sota Kimura , Michiharu Wada , Hiromitsu Haba , Hironobu Ishiyama , Toshitaka Niwase , Marco Rosenbusch , Peter Schury This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phnucl-ex
keywords ionchargestatedistributionisotopeeffectsnuclearspindeformationelectrontransferheliumgascellisomericyieldratioexchange
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 reports that when energetic fission ions are slowed down in helium gas, their final charge-state distribution is not the same for different isotopes, and even differs between the ground state and an isomeric state of the same nuclide. This contradicts the long-standing assumption that electron transfer in a dilute gas is insensitive to the nucleus beyond atomic number and mass, apart from tiny isotope effects. The differences are large—spin enrichment factors around $10^{-1}$—and reproducible, and they do not fit mass-dependent, field-shift, or magnetic isotope effects. If the observation holds, nuclear spin and nuclear deformation would have to be added to the ingredients that set electron-capture rates in ion-gas collisions, with consequences for how radioactive-ion beams are stopped and how isomeric yields are measured.

What carries the argument

The quantitative handle is the spin enrichment factor $\varepsilon_S(q,q') = \rho(q')/\rho(q) - 1$, where $\rho(q)$ is the yield ratio of high-spin to low-spin states in charge state $q$; a nonzero value means the charge-changing step from $q$ to $q'$ preferentially concentrates one spin component. The experimental machinery is a cryogenic helium gas cell that thermalizes fission fragments, followed by a radio-frequency carpet and a multi-reflection time-of-flight mass spectrograph that resolves ground and isomeric states in 1+, 2+, and 3+ charge states. The proposed mechanism is an intermediate quasi-molecular state $(M\mathrm{He})^{\ast}$ formed during electron capture in the low-energy regime below the Bohr velocity; the paper suggests nuclear spin or deformation could suppress formation of this state for higher-spin components, lowering their fraction in the 1+ charge state. This mechanism is explicitly tentative.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to measure the same isomeric yield ratios after deliberately adding a small, controlled amount of a reactive contaminant, such as water or methane at the ppm level, to the helium; if the spin enrichment factors change or disappear, the anomaly is caused by the gas environment rather than by nuclear effects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a cryogenic helium gas cell and a multi-reflection time-of-flight mass spectrograph, the paper measures the relative yields of ground and isomeric states—and of neighboring isotopes—in charge states 1+, 2+, and 3+ after fission fragments stop in helium. The yield ratios depend systematically on charge state: for example, the isomeric yield ratio of $^{97}$Nb changes by orders of magnitude between 2+ and 1+. The spin enrichment factor, defined as the relative change in the high-spin to low-spin yield ratio between two charge states, takes values around $10^{-1}$ for nearly every measured pair, far larger than the $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-3}$ enrichment factors of mass-dependent and field-shift isotope effects. Nonzero spin enrichment appears even for even-even, zero-spin isotope pairs, and the trend of the factor tracks measured nuclear shape transitions in zirconium, tellurium, and cerium. The paper's conclusion is that the nuclear state itself—spin or deformation—influences electron transfer between ions and helium atoms, through a mechanism that remains open.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ions collide almost exclusively with neutral helium atoms, so trace impurities are too rare to affect the charge-state ratios; the paper itself notes that the first measurement series, with higher impurity levels, produced outlying yield ratios.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ion yield ratios measured after stopping in helium must be treated as charge-state dependent, so isomeric yield ratios from gas-cell experiments can be biased unless the 1+, 2+, and 3+ fractions are accounted for.
  • Empirical models of charge-state distributions that depend only on atomic number and velocity will fail for these nuclides; a nuclear-spin or nuclear-shape term is required.
  • The effect is large enough—with spin enrichment factors of order $10^{-1}$—to serve as a new observable in nuclear structure studies, particularly around shape transitions.
  • Because even-even isotopes with zero nuclear spin also show the effect, the anomaly cannot be reduced to hyperfine interactions alone.
  • The observed reproducibility across measurement series indicates the anomaly is a stable feature of the gas-stopping process, not a one-off fluctuation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's scope, the same gas-cell method could be used as a low-cost nuclear-shape probe: charge-state yield ratios across an isotopic chain might locate shape transitions where laser spectroscopy is not yet available.
  • The paper leaves open how a change in nuclear deformation could influence a molecular orbital; a close theoretical target would be ab initio calculations of electron-capture cross sections for a deformed Coulomb potential in a $(M\mathrm{He})^{\ast}$ quasi-molecule.
  • A practical consequence not drawn by the authors: if the effect is universal, ion-guide systems that rely on helium stopping for superheavy-element studies may need to verify charge-state equilibrium separately for each nuclear state, not just each element.
  • A controlled stable-isotope experiment with isotopically enriched samples of known deformation could separate the spin contribution from the shape contribution without relying on fission products.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements of relative yields of ground and isomeric states of fission fragments (93Y, 96Y, 97Y, 98Y, 97Nb, 99Nb, 100Nb, 129Sb, 133Te) extracted from a cryogenic helium gas cell and identified by multi-reflection time-of-flight mass spectrometry. The authors observe that the ratio of isomeric to ground-state yield depends on the charge state (1+, 2+, 3+) at which the ion is extracted, defining a 'spin enrichment factor' εS (Eq. 1). They further extend the analysis to isotope pairs of Zr, Mo, Te, Ce, Nd, La, Pr, and Pm. They claim that the magnitude of εS (~0.1) is orders of magnitude larger than known mass-dependent and field-shift isotope effects, that the effect is reproducible across several measurement series, and that it is a universal nuclear phenomenon involving nuclear spin or deformation. An End Matter section proposes a quasi-molecular-state mechanism for nuclear-spin-dependent electron transfer.

Significance. If the observation is confirmed, it would overturn the standard assumption that nuclear spin and deformation have negligible influence on ion charge state distributions during ion thermalization in noble gases, with implications for gas cell-based radioactive ion beam facilities, ion stopping theory, and the interpretation of fission yield measurements. The paper has notable strengths: the data tables (Tables II and III) give statistical errors, several nuclides were measured in multiple series with consistent results (e.g., 98Y, 97Nb), spin-parity assignments are taken from NUBASE2020, and εS is defined directly from measured yields rather than fitted, so the central claim is not circular. The main weakness is the lack of quantitative control over gas impurities, which the paper itself shows affected some yield ratios.

major comments (3)
  1. [End Matter; Fig. 3; page 4] The assumption stated in the End Matter that 'the collision of incoming ions always occurs against neutral helium atoms' is undermined by the paper's own data. The text on page 4 concedes that 'The CHeGC condition affected the yield ratios' and that in the first measurement series, where impurity intensities were higher than all others, the εS,32 values for 97Ym1,m2 'seem to be outliers' (Fig. 3, Table II). This demonstrates a sensitivity of at least some nuclides to impurity levels. The justification offered—'relative lack of observed radio-molecular ions'—only bounds charged molecular products; neutral impurities such as H2O or hydrocarbons could participate in charge exchange without producing detectable radio-molecular ions. Without a dedicated experiment in which impurity concentrations are deliberately varied, or a quantitative measurement of the residual gas composition, the alternative explanation that spin-selective chemistry with trace contaminants produces the charge-state-dependent yield ratios is not excluded. This issue is load-bearing because the central claim that the effect is nuclear in origin rests on the absence of such contamination effects.
  2. [Abstract; Fig. 4; Eqs. (1)-(2); Table III] The claim that the anomaly is 'a universal phenomenon' is an extrapolation from a limited, selection-biased sample: the nuclides studied are all fission products from a single 252Cf source that could be extracted with sufficient yield and that possess measurable isomeric states or suitable isotope pairs. Moreover, for the even-even isotope pairs included in Fig. 4 (e.g., Zr 100/98, Mo 106/108, Te 134/132, Ce 148/146, Nd 152/154), both members have ground-state spin 0, so the 'lower-spin' and 'higher-spin' labels used in Eqs. (1)-(2) and in Table III do not correspond to a spin difference. The sign and interpretation of εS for these pairs is therefore ambiguous, and the agreement between εS trends and δ⟨r2⟩ changes is based on a small number of points. The universality claim should be tempered to the studied nuclides, or additional data from different mass regions and production mechanisms should be provided.
  3. [End Matter; Eqs. (4)-(6); Fig. 5] The proposed quasi-molecular-state mechanism is presented as an explanation for the anomaly, but it is not quantitatively supported. The argument that a nuclear-spin-energy scale of ~10^-5 eV can affect electron transfer thresholds of several eV, or that nuclear shape changes can alter quasi-molecular orbital configurations, is made without any estimate or model calculation. The manuscript explicitly states that the mechanism is uncertain ('the mechanisms remain an open question'), but the abstract and title present nuclear spin and deformation as 'key' to the effect. To make the case that the anomaly is nuclear in origin (rather than an artifact of the gas cell environment), the authors should either provide a semiquantitative estimate showing that nuclear properties can produce εS ~ 0.1, or clearly separate the empirical observation from the speculative mechanism.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3; End Matter] Typos: 'Normd yield ratio' in Fig. 3 and 'ISCD' in the End Matter should be corrected; the figure caption uses 'εs' instead of 'εS'.
  2. [Fig. 4] The definition of the 'reference isotope' arrows in Fig. 4 is not given in the main text; please clarify how the reference is chosen, especially for even-even pairs with Jπ=0+.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Method] The peak-shape assumption in Eq. (9) (identical shape for all peaks in an A/q series) is cross-checked only for 96Y (agreement between peak fit and event counting). A systematic cross-check for the other nuclides in Tables II and III would increase confidence in the yield ratios.
  4. [Page 2, gas cell description] The purification system is described qualitatively, but no quantitative residual-gas analysis is provided; reporting an upper limit on impurity partial pressures (e.g., H2O, O2, hydrocarbons) would directly address the major concern about impurity sensitivity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is a direct measurement, with epsilon_S defined from observed yields and spin assignments from external NUBASE2020; the proposed mechanism is explicitly speculative.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation: charge-state-dependent yield ratios between ground and isomeric states and between isotopes of fission fragments stopped in helium gas. The spin enrichment factor epsilon_S is defined directly from measured peak-height ratios (Eqs. 1 and 2), not obtained by fitting a model that already contains the anomaly. Spin and parity assignments are taken from NUBASE2020, an external evaluated database, and mean-square charge radii are taken from independent laser-spectroscopy references and theory. No equation in the paper reduces the anomaly to the assumed values, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The End Matter QMS mechanism is introduced as 'A possible mechanism that explains an ICSD anomaly' and is explicitly left as an open question, so it is not used to derive the observation. Self-citations appear for the apparatus and analysis methods (e.g., [23], [25], [37]), but these describe the setup and peak-fitting procedure rather than providing the load-bearing justification for the anomaly. The paper's own admission that impurity conditions affected some yield ratios (e.g., the 97Ym1,m2 outliers in the first series) is a validity concern about environmental contamination, not a circular-dependence of the result on its own assumptions. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the measured ratios; the minor self-citations are not load-bearing. The moderate score reflects those minor normal self-citations rather than any actual circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is based on measured peak ratios rather than a fitted theory. The only fitted quantities are peak-shape parameters. The listed axioms are the experimental and interpretive assumptions required for the measured yield ratios to reflect charge-exchange probabilities that differ by nuclear state.

free parameters (1)
  • Peak shape parameters sigma, t_s1, t_s2 in Eq. 9 = not reported
    These are fitted per TOF spectrum to extract peak heights; the yield ratios rho(q) are computed from fitted kappa values, so any bias in the peak shape model propagates into the observed anomaly.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Collisions occur only with neutral helium atoms; impurity contributions are negligible.
    Stated in End Matter as assumption one; the paper itself notes gas purity varied between series and produced outliers, making this assumption load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Peaks of ions in the same A/q series have an identical shape, so peak heights can be compared across ground and isomeric states.
    Supplemental Methods, Eqs. 9-11; if this fails, the intensity ratios are biased.
  • domain assumption The TOF calibration and single-reference method uniquely identify ion species and charge states.
    Supplemental Methods, Eqs. 7-8; misidentification of peaks would break all conclusions.
  • domain assumption For a given nuclide, ground state and isomer have identical electronic structure except for tiny hyperfine energy shifts, so any charge exchange difference must come from nuclear properties.
    This is the background assumption the paper challenges; it is not independently established within this paper.
  • domain assumption In the low-energy limit, collision time is long enough for a quasi-molecular state to form during electron transfer.
    End Matter mechanism; used for the proposed explanation, though the observed anomaly itself does not require this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous nuclear effects on ion charge state distribution in helium gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IZVAVWS3

@misc{pith2026250109364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous nuclear effects on ion charge state distribution in helium gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IZVAVWS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09364}
}
read the original abstract

The influence of isotope differences on ion charge state yield ratios has never been studied in detail, having been considered negligible. However, we have observed anomalous ion charge state distributions in the thermalization of energetic atomic ions in helium gas; the charge state distributions varied between not only isotopes but also between nuclear states within the same nuclide. The magnitude of the observed results suggests that this anomaly is a universal phenomenon that cannot be explained by the framework of the known isotope effects. Nuclear spin and deformation could be key to unraveling this, but the mechanisms remain an open question.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Time-of-flight spectra focusing on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time-of-flight spectra where the horizontal axis has been converted to the mass-energy relative to the ground state. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Left panel) Normalized yield ratios of the ground and isomeric state’s peaks as the function of nuclear spin difference: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spin enrichment factor (see Eq. 1), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Summary of the proposed mechanism of an ICSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. H. Henderson and E. Rutherford, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 102, 496 (1923)

    work page 1923

  2. [2]

    Betz, Rev

    H. Betz, Rev. Mod. Phys. 44, 465 (1972)

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    Wittkower and H

    A. Wittkower and H. Betz, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 5, 113 (1973)

    work page 1973

  4. [4]

    Shima, T

    K. Shima, T. Mikumo, and H. Tawara, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 34, 357 (1986)

    1986

  5. [5]

    Shima, N

    K. Shima, N. Kuno, M. Yamanouchi, and H. Tawara, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 51, 173 (1992)

    1992

  6. [6]

    A. Leon, S. Melki, D. Lisfi, J. Grandin, P. Jardin, M. Suraud, and A. Cassimi, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 69, 217 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Ghiorso, S

    A. Ghiorso, S. Yashita, M. Leino, L. Frank, J. Kalnins, P. Armbruster, J.-P. Dufour, and P. Lemmertz, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 269, 192 (1988)

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    Shima, N

    K. Shima, N. Kuno, and M. Yamanouchi, Phys. Rev. A 40, 3557 (1989)

    work page 1989

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Y. T. Oganessian, Y. V. Lobanov, A. G. Popeko, F. S. Abdullin, Y. P. Kharitonov, A. A. Ledovskoy, and Y. S. Tsyganov, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters 21, S357 (1991)

    1991

  2. [10]

    Scheidenberger, T

    C. Scheidenberger, T. St¨ ohlker, W. Meyerhof, H. Geis- sel, P. Mokler, and B. Blank, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interac- tions with Materials and Atoms 142, 441 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    Schiwietz and P

    G. Schiwietz and P. Grande, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interac- tions with Materials and Atoms 175-177, 125 (2001), twelfth International Conference of Ion Beam Modifica- tion of Materials

    2001

  4. [12]

    Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Y. V. Lobanov, F. S. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Y. S. Tsyganov, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, Y. A. Lazarev, K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, N. J. Stoyer, M. A. Stoyer, R. W. Lo...

    2001

  5. [13]

    W. Liu, G. Imbriani, L. Buchmann, A. Chen, J. D’Auria, A. D’Onofrio, S. Engel, L. Gialanella, U. Greife, D. Hunter, A. Hussein, D. Hutcheon, A. Olin, D. Ot- tewell, D. Rogalla, J. Rogers, M. Romano, G. Roy, and F. Terrasi, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Se...

    2003

  6. [14]

    Kuboki, H

    H. Kuboki, H. Okuno, S. Yokouchi, H. Hasebe, T. Kishida, N. Fukunishi, O. Kamigaito, A. Goto, M. Kase, and Y. Yano, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 13, 093501 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    D. Kaji, K. Morita, K. Morimoto, H. Haba, and H. Kudo, Proceedings in Radiochemistry 1, 105 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Gregorich, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 711, 47 (2013)

    K. Gregorich, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 711, 47 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Khuyagbaatar, V

    J. Khuyagbaatar, V. P. Shevelko, A. Borschevsky, C. E. D¨ ullmann, I. Y. Tolstikhina, and A. Yakushev, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042703 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Kudryavtsev, T

    Y. Kudryavtsev, T. Cocolios, J. Gentens, O. Ivanov, M. Huyse, D. Pauwels, M. Sawicka, T. Sonoda, P. Van den Bergh, and P. Van Duppen, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interac- tions with Materials and Atoms 266, 4368 (2008), pro- ceedings of ...

    2008

  11. [19]

    Schury, M

    P. Schury, M. Wada, Y. Ito, D. Kaji, H. Haba, Y. Hi- rayama, S. Kimura, H. Koura, M. MacCormick, H. Miy- atake, J. Moon, K. Morimoto, K. Morita, I. Murray, A. Ozawa, M. Rosenbusch, M. Reponen, A. Takamine, T. Tanaka, Y. Watanabe, and H. Wollnik, Nuclear In- struments and Metho...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Kaleja, B

    O. Kaleja, B. Andeli´ c, K. Blaum, M. Block, P. Chhetri, 6 C. Droese, C. D¨ ullmann, M. Eibach, S. Eliseev, J. Even, S. G¨ otz, F. Giacoppo, N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki, M. Laa- tiaoui, E. Minaya Ramirez, A. Mistry, T. Murb¨ ock, S. Raeder, L. Schweikhard, and P. Thirolf, Nuclear ...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Mollaebrahimi, D

    A. Mollaebrahimi, D. Amanbayev, S. A. S. Andr´ es, S. Beck, J. Bergmann, T. Dickel, H. Geissel, C. Hornung, N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki, G. Kripko-Koncz, I. Miskun, D. Nichita, W. Plaß, I. Pohjalainen, C. Scheidenberger, G. Stanic, A. State, and J. Zhao, Nuclear Instruments and Me...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Stolterfoht, R

    N. Stolterfoht, R. Cabrera-Trujillo, Y. ¨Ohrn, E. Deu- mens, R. Hoekstra, and J. R. Sabin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 103201 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Kimura, M

    S. Kimura, M. Wada, H. Haba, H. Ishiyama, S. Ishizawa, Y. Ito, T. Niwase, M. Rosenbusch, P. Schury, and A. Takamine, Phys. Rev. C 110, 045810 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    M. Wada, Y. Ishida, T. Nakamura, Y. Yamazaki, T. Kambara, H. Ohyama, Y. Kanai, T. M. Kojima, Y. Nakai, N. Ohshima, A. Yoshida, T. Kubo, Y. Matsuo, Y. Fukuyama, K. Okada, T. Sonoda, S. Ohtani, K. Noda, H. Kawakami, and I. Katayama, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Res...

    2003

  17. [25]

    Schury, M

    P. Schury, M. Wada, Y. Ito, F. Arai, S. Naimi, T. Sonoda, H. Wollnik, V. Shchepunov, C. Smorra, and C. Yuan, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 335, 39 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    G.-S. Li, C. Xu, and M. Bao, Chinese Physics C 47, 084104 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Kondev, M

    F. Kondev, M. Wang, W. Huang, S. Naimi, and G. Audi, Chinese Physics C 45, 030001 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    The difference in chemical properties among differ- ent isotopes is called the isotope effect

    in chemistry, but this does not work in the present cases. The difference in chemical properties among differ- ent isotopes is called the isotope effect. This originates from two properties of atomic nuclei. The influence of differences in isotopic masses is categorized as the...

  22. [30]

    A. L. Buchachenko, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 117, 2231 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Bigeleisen and M

    J. Bigeleisen and M. G. Mayer, The Journal of Chemical Physics 15, 261 (1947)

    1947

  24. [32]

    Yang and Y

    S. Yang and Y. Liu, Acta Geochimica 35, 227 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    H. L. Thayer, J. Billowes, P. Campbell, P. Dendooven, K. T. Flanagan, D. H. Forest, J. A. R. Griffith, J. Huikari, A. Jokinen, R. Moore, A. Nieminen, G. Tun- gate, S. Zemlyanoi, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 29, 2247 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    R. Sifi, F. Le Blanc, N. Barr´ e, L. Cabaret, J. Craw- ford, M. Ducourtieux, S. Essabaa, J. Genevey, G. Huber, M. Kowalska, C. Lau, J. K. P. Lee, G. Le Scornet, J. Oms, J. Pinard, B. Roussi` ere, J. Sauvage, M. Seliverstov, and H. Stroke, in LASER 2006, edited by Z. B laszczak...

    2006

  27. [35]

    Cheal, M

    B. Cheal, M. Avgoulea, J. Billowes, P. Campbell, K. T. Flanagan, D. H. Forest, M. D. Gardner, J. Huikari, B. A. Marsh, A. Nieminen, H. L. Thayer, G. Tungate, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 29, 2479 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    See End Matter for a possible mechanism for explaining an ICSD anomaly

  29. [37]

    Mauracher, M

    A. Mauracher, M. Daxner, J. Postler, S. E. Huber, S. Denifl, P. Scheier, and J. P. Toennies, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 5, 2444 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Y. Ito, P. Schury, M. Wada, S. Naimi, T. Sonoda, H. Mita, F. Arai, A. Takamine, K. Okada, A. Ozawa, and H. Wollnik, Phys. Rev. C 88, 011306 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    relative

    K. Lan and J. W. Jorgenson, Journal of Chromatography A 915, 1 (2001). END MA TTER A possible mechanism that explains an ICSD anomaly– First, let us consider the case of the isomeric yield ratios. For most of the yttrium and niobium isotopes and the antimony isotopes, εS satis...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.