Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Coupling model of metallic target ablation-plasma evolution-radiation under nanosecond laser irradiation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single coupled model of laser ablation, plasma expansion, and radiative transfer reproduces measured iron-plasma spectra—including late self-absorption—better than spatially averaged or optically thin spectral calculations.

desk verdict A genuinely integrated ablation-plasma-radiation model, but the 'full-chain self-consistent' claim is stronger than the one-way radiation coupling supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26081 v1 pith:MDWYC55H submitted 2026-07-24 physics.plasm-ph physics.comp-phphysics.optics

Ying Zhou , Jian Wu , Hao Sun , Jinghui Li , Xiaoxuan Li , Shuzhi Huang , Jiayao He , Xingyu Liu
show 3 more authors
Yuhua Hang Cuixiang Pei Xingwen Li
This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.comp-phphysics.optics PACS 52.38.Mf87.15.A42.62.Fi
keywords nanosecondlaserablationplasmashieldingKnudsenlayerlocalthermodynamicequilibriumradiativetransferself-absorptionironLIBSmultiphysicscoupling
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

This paper tries to establish that a single self-consistent numerical model can describe the entire nanosecond laser ablation chain—laser energy deposition into a metal target, melting, evaporation across a Knudsen layer, viscous plasma expansion with LTE ionization, and spectral emission computed by radiative transfer. The authors argue this matters because separate or simplified spectral treatments, which use spatially averaged plasma parameters or assume optically thin emission, cannot reproduce the optical-thickness effects seen in real LIBS spectra, especially the self-reversed atomic lines that appear as the plume cools. For iron under a 0.2 GW/cm2, 10 ns pulse, the model reproduces the observed sequence from a hot, Fe3+-dominated, continuum-bright plume to a cool, neutral-atom-dominated plume, and it scores highest against experiment on six-channel quantitative metrics. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that full-chain self-consistent modeling is both feasible and necessary for quantitative spectral diagnostics and for understanding how plasma shielding throttles evaporation.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a two-region coupled solver: a phase-change heat-conduction model of the target connected by a Knudsen-layer kinetic discontinuity to a compressible viscous fluid description of the vapor and plasma, with ionization closed by the Saha equation under local thermodynamic equilibrium and spectra obtained by solving the radiative transfer equation along the plume using convolved line profiles and classical continuum coefficients. The Knudsen layer is the hinge: it converts surface evaporation rate and saturated vapor pressure into a Mach-number-controlled mass, momentum, and energy flux entering the plume, and its choking condition (Mach 1) yields the 81.6% sonic-transp

What would settle it

Rerun the same iron case with line and recombination radiation coupled back into the plasma energy equation (including reabsorption heating where relevant); if the predicted plume temperature at 100–600 ns, the Fe3+/Fe2+/Fe+/Fe0 fractions, or the time-integrated spectra change by more than the reported scoring margins against experiment, the one-way post-processing treatment is disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims one numerical model can carry the whole ablation chain—heat conduction with phase change, Knudsen-layer kinetics, LTE ionization, and radiative-transfer spectra—and that this coupling reproduces measured iron-plasma spectra. The simulation gives plasma shielding at ~15 ns, 81.6% of early ablative mass escaping by sonic Knudsen-layer choking, ionization decaying from Fe3+ to Fe0 by 1 μs, and spectra moving from a continuum-bright, ion-dominated shape at 400 ns to atomic lines with self-reversed Fe I at 800 ns–1 μs. On channel-by-channel metrics, the model scores highest against experiment, including over spatially averaged and optically thin spectral treatments.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that radiation is a spectator: the plasma's temperature and ionization are computed with only bremsstrahlung losses, then the full spectrum is synthesized afterward, so line and recombination radiation are assumed not to cool or re-energize the plume enough to matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, quantitative LIBS line intensities—including self-absorbed resonance lines—can be computed from first-principles flow-field data instead of assumed uniform temperature and density.
  • Plasma shielding onset becomes a predictable quantity that controls the evaporation window and ablated mass, which is directly relevant to laser processing parameter optimization.
  • The 81.6% sonic-transport fraction implies that early ablation products are carried into the plume mostly by a choked kinetic jet rather than by slow diffusion, setting the initial conditions for plume chemistry and radiation.
  • The predicted Fe3+ → Fe2+ → Fe+ → Fe0 ionization timeline gives a time-resolved sequence that can be checked with gated emission spectroscopy.
  • The reported scoring advantage over spatially averaged and optically thin spectral synthesis indicates that the main source of error in standard LIBS spectral modeling is the neglect of plasma inhomogeneity and optical thickness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because the paper's radiation feedback is one-way, a natural and decisive extension is to couple line and recombination radiation back into the plasma energy equation; the authors' own stated assumption suggests they expect this feedback to be small, but the paper does not demonstrate it.
  • Inference: The model architecture is not iron-specific—replacing atomic data and transport properties should extend it to other metals—but the current line list (170 Fe I and 96 Fe II lines) limits line density, so the reported spectral match is established for strong lines only.
  • Inference: The one-dimensional geometry omits lateral plume expansion; real plumes have radial temperature and density gradients that could strengthen or weaken the self-absorption effect, so a 2D or 3D version is the direct test of whether the axial gradients alone explain the measured line shapes.
  • Inference: The 78/22 N2/O2 air surrogate and the exclusion of background-gas ionization are reasonable at 0.2 GW/cm2, but at higher irradiances air breakdown would compete for laser energy and shift the shielding timing, changing the regime the model describes.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a one-dimensional multi-physics model of nanosecond-laser ablation of a pure iron target, coupling solid/liquid heat conduction with phase change, Knudsen-layer interface kinetics, viscous compressible plume hydrodynamics with LTE ionization and multicomponent diffusion, and spectral radiative transfer. The numerical scheme uses an implicit compact difference method in the target and a Mac-Cormack scheme in the gas. The authors report plasma shielding, a sonic-expansion-dominated early ablation phase (81.6% of vapor mass), a plume that cools from an Fe3+-dominated state to neutral Fe, and synthetic spectra showing self-absorption. The calculated time-integrated spectra are compared with the authors' earlier experiment and with PrismSPECT and NIST LIBS, with the proposed model receiving the highest relative ranks on RSD-based metrics.

Significance. If fully supported, the model would offer a useful single framework for simulating ablation, plume expansion, and spectral emission in nanosecond laser-material interactions, including optical-thickness effects such as self-absorption. The strengths are the explicit treatment of phase change and Knudsen-layer kinetics, the inclusion of multicomponent diffusion and variable transport coefficients, and the use of spatially resolved radiative transfer rather than a homogeneous or optically thin approximation. The comparative evaluation against PrismSPECT and NIST LIBS is a constructive benchmark. However, the central claim of 'full-chain self-consistent modeling' is broader than what the implementation actually does, and the quantitative validation is presented in a way that is weaker than the prose suggests.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, 2.5] The model is not radiatively self-consistent. Sec. 2.5 states that 'radiation treatment serves as a post-processing step in flow field calculations,' and Sec. 2.3 defines the radiative loss term ε_rad as bremsstrahlung only. Line emission, recombination continua, and line absorption are computed after the flow field is frozen (Eqs. 15–20). Thus the plasma state used for spectral synthesis is unaffected by the radiation it emits or reabsorbs. The paper justifies this by saying radiative losses are negligible at 10^3–10^5 K, but Fig. 3(b) shows a peak temperature above 90,000 K and Fig. 3(e) displays an Fe3+-dominated core above 50,000 K, where iron line and recombination losses are typically not negligible. This unquantified assumption is load-bearing because the validation is entirely spectral: a post-processed spectrum cannot validate radiative feedback into the hydrodynamics. Please ei
  2. [Sec. 3.5, Eqs. (24)–(25)] The quantitative comparison is presented as relative ranks (scores 1–4 per channel) rather than as absolute RSD values with uncertainties. The actual RSD_a-a and RSD_p-p numbers are never reported, so the reader cannot judge whether the proposed model's improvement over PrismSPECT planar is physically significant or within experimental error. In addition, the 'experimental data' come from the authors' own prior work (Ref. [45]) rather than an independent measurement, and no uncertainty or shot-to-shot variation is given. Please report the computed RSD values, their uncertainties, and the experimental reproducibility; otherwise the claim of 'highest comprehensive scores' is only a ranking among four methods on a single dataset.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The displayed equations contain many OCR/transliteration artifacts (e.g., Eq. (2) is not fully legible; Greek and subscript symbols are garbled in places). The English translation would benefit from careful copyediting before archival publication.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Table 1] The solid-liquid coexistence interval width Δ is an input parameter set to 30 K, but no sensitivity study is shown for this parameter. Since Δ directly affects the phase-change treatment, a brief sensitivity note would strengthen confidence in the ablation results.
  3. [Sec. 2.6] The spectral model includes only the first 170 Fe I and 96 Fe II lines. Given that the plasma model tracks Fe3+, the authors should justify why Fe III (or higher) lines are not needed for the 400 ns–4 μs integration window, or state this as a limitation. The paper already notes the line list limits the spectral density, but the ionization-stage mismatch should be made explicit.
  4. [Sec. 3.5] The experimental integration time is reported as 1.05 ms, while the synthetic spectra are integrated only from 400 ns to 4 μs. The stated justification is that the intensity has decayed by seven orders of magnitude, but this equivalence is not demonstrated quantitatively; please provide the decay curve or a convergence test with respect to the upper integration limit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the model equations and spectral synthesis are self-contained and no spectral constants are fitted; the only self-referential element is the prior experimental paper used for validation, which is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular by construction. The target/ablation equations (Eqs. 1-3), Knudsen-layer interface relations (Eqs. 4-8), plasma flow and Saha ionization (Eqs. 9-10), transport coefficients (Eqs. 11-14), and radiative-transfer spectral synthesis (Eqs. 15-20) are all stated physical closures with standard atomic data and material properties; no parameter is fitted to the measured spectrum. The quantitative comparison uses RSD metrics (Eqs. 24-25) and a post hoc rank-scoring scheme, which is an evaluation convention rather than a fitted input. The emergence of self-absorption follows directly from solving Eq. (16) with the absorption coefficient of Eq. (17) on the simulated inhomogeneous flow field, so it is not a renamed input. The paper's own limitation—'radiation treatment serves as a post-processing step in flow field calculations' and only 'bremsstrahlung losses as a representative mechanism' are included in the energy equation—undercuts the 'full-chain self-consistent' label physically, but it does not create circularity because the spectra do not feed back into the flow field. The validation data come from the authors' earlier work (Ref. [45]: 'more specific experimental settings are available in our previous work[45]'), which is a self-citation; however, those are externally measured spectra, not outputs of this model, so the central claim does not reduce to that citation. Score 2 reflects only this minor self-referential validation source, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard plasma/fluid approximations rather than new physical entities. The main non-trivial assumptions are LTE for ionization, one-way radiative transfer with only bremsstrahlung cooling, neglect of air breakdown, air modeled as N2/O2, and single-pulse conditions. Numerical smoothing parameters Δ and C_x are chosen by hand. No invented particles, forces, or conservation laws are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Δ (solid-liquid coexistence interval width) = 30 K
    Table 1; used in Eq. (1) to smooth the phase-change region in the heat transfer equation. Chosen by hand; affects the width of the coexistence interval.
  • C_x (artificial viscosity coefficient) = 0.2
    Sec. 2.6: 'through parameter sensitivity analysis, this study selects C_x = 0.2.' Regulates artificial viscosity in the Mac-Cormack scheme and affects shock smoothing and numerical stability.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium (Saha equilibrium) holds for ionization states during the main plasma phase and in the near-field region.
    Sec. 2.3: 'this study adopts a framework based on local thermodynamic equilibrium... It applies to nanosecond pulse ablation scenarios with peak irradiance on the order of 10^8~10^10 W/cm².' Underlies Eq. (10) and all ionization state predictions.
  • domain assumption Radiative energy loss from the plasma is negligible for the flow; radiation is a one-way post-processing step, with only bremsstrahlung loss represented.
    Sec. 2.5: 'the relatively low plasma temperature (10^3~10^5 K) renders radiative energy loss negligible compared to particle kinetic and thermal energies.' Sec. 2.3 says ε_rad is 'calculated here using bremsstrahlung losses as a representative mechanism.' If line radiation cooling is significant, computed temperatures and spectra change.
  • domain assumption Background gas (air) ionization is neglected.
    Sec. 2.6: 'The ionization calculations account for the first three ionization stages of pure iron, excluding background gas breakdown.' Air breakdown would absorb laser energy and alter plasma shielding and spectral continuum.
  • domain assumption Air is treated as a 78% N2 / 22% O2 mixture with Lennard-Jones transport coefficients.
    Sec. 2.4: 'we simplify air to a mixture of 78% N2 and 22% O2.' Affects diffusion, viscosity, thermal conductivity, and plume mixing dynamics.
  • standard math The vapor/plasma behaves as an ideal gas.
    Sec. 2.3: 'the ideal gas equation of state links particle mass, temperature, and pressure.' Appropriate for low-density vapor and plasma, but not for the condensed target phases.
  • standard math The Knudsen layer can be represented as a kinetic discontinuity with a half-Maxwellian-to-Maxwellian velocity distribution transition.
    Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (4)-(6); based on Anisimov/Knight kinetic theory. A standard idealization, but its accuracy for nanosecond ablation of iron is not independently verified.
  • domain assumption Single-pulse / low-repetition-rate conditions with negligible inter-pulse thermal accumulation.
    Sec. 2.1: thermal relaxation time of pure iron is stated as ~440 μs, so pulse intervals are assumed much longer and each pulse is treated independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupling model of metallic target ablation-plasma evolution-radiation under nanosecond laser irradiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDWYC55H

@misc{pith2026260726081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupling model of metallic target ablation-plasma evolution-radiation under nanosecond laser irradiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDWYC55H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26081}
}
read the original abstract

The interaction of nanosecond laser pulses with metallic materials involves multiple complex physical processes. It is challenging to construct a self-consistent model capable of uniformly describing all stages. This work establishes a multi-physics coupling model for pure iron, encompassing laser energy deposition, solid-liquid phase transition, gas-liquid interfacial kinetic transport, plasma expansion and ionization, and spectral radiation. The numerical solution adopts a partition method, utilizing an implicit compact difference scheme for the target and a Mac-Cormack explicit scheme for the plasma. The simulations elucidate the emergence of plasma shielding and its inhibitory effect on the evaporation process, thereby confirming that 81.6% of the early-stage ablation products are transported through a supersonic expansion mode. The model successfully captures the complete evolution of the plasma plume from a high-temperature, highly ionized state to a low-temperature, neutral atomic state. Based on this, spectral calculations demonstrate the dynamic evolution of radiative characteristics from an early stage featuring a strong continuum background dominated by ion lines to a later stage where the continuum attenuates, atomic lines become prominent, and self-absorption appears. The emergence of self-absorption proves the ability of the model to effectively capture the optical thickness effects arising from spatial inhomogeneity within the plasma. Through systematic comparison between experimentally measured spectra and calculated results from the PrismSPECT and NIST LIBS spectral programs, the model presented here achieves the highest comprehensive scores in quantitative evaluations of multiple channels. This validates the necessity and superiority of the full-chain self-consistent modeling approach, especially in describing plasma inhomogeneity and radiation transport.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references

  1. [45]

    Zhou Y , Wu J, Shi M X, Chen M X, Li J H, Guo X Y , Hang Y H, Pei C X, Li X W 2025 Appl. Phys. Lett. 126 034103

    2025

  2. [1]

    Wu J, Qiu Y , Li X W, Yu H, Zhang Z, Qiu A C 2020 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 53 023001

    2020

  3. [2]

    Liu J B, Zhang D H Y , Fu Y Y 2023 New J. Phys. 25 122001

    2023

  4. [3]

    Wu J, Zhou Y , Chen M, Li X 2025 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 58 143004

    2025

  5. [4]

    Wen S B, Mao X L, Greif R, Russo R E 2007 J. Appl. Phys. 102 043103

    2007

  6. [5]

    Bleiner D, Chen Z Y , Autrique D, Bogaerts A 2006 J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 21 910

    2006

  7. [6]

    Vanraes P, Venugopalan S P, Bogaerts A 2021 Appl. Phys. Rev. 8 041305

    2021

  8. [7]

    Yin P Q, Xu B P, Liu Y H, Wang Y S, Zhao W, Tang J 2024 Acta Phys. Sin. 73 095202

    2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Zhang D H Y , Liu J B, Fu Y Y 2024 Acta Phys. Sin. 73 025201

    2024

  2. [9]

    Acta Part B 100 147

    Shabanov S V , Gornushkin I B 2014 Spectrochim. Acta Part B 100 147

    2014

  3. [10]

    Lu Q M, Mao S S, Mao X L, Russo R E 2008 J. Appl. Phys. 104 083301

    2008

  4. [11]

    Acta Part B 173 105989

    Gaft M, Nagli L, Gornushkin I, Raichlin Y 2020 Spectrochim. Acta Part B 173 105989

    2020

  5. [12]

    Anisimov S I, Luk'yanchuk B S 2002 Phys. Usp. 45 293

    2002

  6. [13]

    17 519 27

    Knight C J 1979 Aiaa J. 17 519 27

    1979

  7. [14]

    Fryxell B, Olson K, Ricker P, Timmes F X, Zingale M, Lamb D Q, MacNeice P, Rosner R, Truran J W, Tufo H 2000 Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 131 273

    2000

  8. [15]

    Guthikonda N, Kameswari D P S L, Manikanta E, Shiva S S, Harsha S S, Ikkurthi V R, Kiran P P 2023 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 56 305501

    2023

  9. [16]

    Plasma Phys

    Pert G J 2009 J. Plasma Phys. 35 43

    2009

  10. [17]

    Al-Khateeb A, Doyle L A, El- Astal A H, Lamb M J, Lewis C L S, Martin G W, Morrow T, Pert G J, Riley D, Weaver I, Williamson T P 1999 Appl. Phys. A 69 S479

    1999

  11. [18]

    Hill M, Wagenaars E 2022 Photonics 9 937

    2022

  12. [19]

    Controlled Fusion 54 055003

    Basko M M, Sasorov P V , Murakami M, Novikov V G, Grushin A S 2012 Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 54 055003

    2012

  13. [20]

    Torretti F, Sheil J, Schupp R, Basko M M, Bayraktar M, Meijer R A, Witte S, Ubachs W, Hoekstra R, Versolato O O, Neukirch A J, Colgan J 2020 Nat. Commun. 11 2334

    2020

  14. [21]

    MacFarlane J J, Golovkin I E, Woodruff P R, Kulkarni S K, Hall I M 2013 Simulation of Plasma Ionization and Spectral Properties with PrismSPECT p1-1

    2013

  15. [22]

    MacFarlane J J, Golovkin I E, Woodruff P R 2006 J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 99 381

    2006

  16. [23]

    MacFarlane J J, Golovkin I E, Wang P, Woodruff P R, Pereyra N A 2007 High Energy Density Phys. 3 181

    2007

  17. [24]

    Plasma 30 122109

    Joshi T R, Bailly-Grandvaux M, Turner R E, Spielman R B, Garay J E, Beg F N 2023 Phys. Plasma 30 122109

    2023

  18. [25]

    Ralchenko Y , Kramida A 2020 Atoms 8 56

    2020

  19. [26]

    Veis P, Marín-Roldán A, Kristof J 2018 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 27 095001

    2018

  20. [27]

    Technol 23 035001

    Wang J X, Zhang L, Wang S Q, Su M G, Sun D X, Han J H, Xia G F, Dong C Z, Min Q, Ma W G, Dong L, Yin W B, Xiao L T, Jia S T 2021 Plasma Sci. Technol 23 035001

    2021

  21. [28]

    Palya A, Ranjbar O A, Lin Z, V olkov A N 2019 Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 132 1029

    2019

  22. [29]

    Gornushkin I, Shabanov S, Omenetto N, Winefordner J 2006 J. Appl. Phys. 100 073304

    2006

  23. [30]

    Zeifman M I, Garrison B J, Zhigilei L V 2002 J. Appl. Phys. 92 2181

    2002

  24. [31]

    Heltemes T A, Moses G A 2012 Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 2629

    2012

  25. [32]

    Faik S, Tauschwitz A, Iosilevskiy I 2018 Comput. Phys. Commun. 227 117

    2018

  26. [33]

    Fluids 31 3059

    More R M, Warren K H, Young D A, Zimmerman G B 1988 Phys. Fluids 31 3059

    1988

  27. [34]

    Proc 2272 120006

    Haxhimali T, Echeverria M, Najjar F, Tzeferacos P, Ali S J, Park H S, Eggert J, Huntington C, Morgan B, Ping Y , Rinderknecht H G, Saunders A M 2020 AIP Conf. Proc 2272 120006

    2020

  28. [35]

    Noble C, Anderson A, Barton N, Bramwell J, Capps A, Chang M, Chou J, Dawson D, Diana E, Dunn T, Faux D, Fisher A, Greene P, Heinz I, Kanarska Y , Khairallah S, Liu B, Margraf J, Nichols A, White J 2017 ALE3D: An Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian Multi-Physics Code

    2017

  29. [36]

    Min Q, Xu Z Y , He S Q, Lu H D, Liu X B, Shen R Z, Wu Y H, Pan Q K, Zhao C X, Chen F, Su M G, Dong C Z 2024 Comput. Phys. Commun. 302 109242 28

    2024

  30. [37]

    Min Q, Wang G D, He C W, He S Q, Lu H D, Liu X B, Wu Y H, Su M G, Dong C Z 2025 Acta Phys. Sin. 74 033201

    2025

  31. [38]

    Min Q, Su M G, Cao S Q, Sun D X, O'Sullivan G, Dong C Z 2016 Opt. Lett. 41 5282

    2016

  32. [39]

    Bulgakova N M, Bulgakov A V , Babich L P 2004 Appl. Phys. A 79 1323

    2004

  33. [40]

    Anisimov S I 1968 Soviet Physics Jetp-Ussr 27 182

    1968

  34. [41]

    Plasma 27 023301

    Nosrati Y , Tavassoli S H, Hassanimatin M M, Safi A 2020 Phys. Plasma 27 023301

    2020

  35. [42]

    Fairbanks D F, Wilke C R 2002 Ind. Eng. Chem. 42 471

    2002

  36. [43]

    Acta Part B 56 1769

    Gornushkin I B, Stevenson C L, Smith B W, Omenetto N, Winefordner J D 2001 Spectrochim. Acta Part B 56 1769

    2001

  37. [44]

    Huang X F, Guo R, Ge YB 2014 Chin. J. Eng. Math. 31 371

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.