Paper detail

Electron Scattering in Liquid Water and Amorphous Ice: A Striking Resemblance

The lack of accurate low-energy electron scattering cross sections for liquid water is a substantial source of uncertainty in the modelling of radiation chemistry and biology. The use of existing amorphous ice scattering cross sections for lack of liquid data has been discussed controversially over decades. Here, we compare experimental photoemission data of liquid water with corresponding predictions using amorphous ice cross sections, with the aim of resolving the debate regarding the difference of electron scattering in liquid water and amorphous ice. We find very similar scattering properties in the liquid and the ice for electron kinetic energies up to a few hundred electron volts. The scattering cross sections recommended here for liquid water are an extension of the amorphous ice cross sections. Within the framework of currently available experimental data, our work answers one of the most debated questions regarding electron scattering in liquid water.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.