English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent article, Schild et al. present what they call an alternativeapproach to the determination of mean free paths of electron scattering inliquid water. This by no means new approach is based on a very simplistic twochannel model of electron scattering with only one fully elastic and one fullyinelastic (total loss) channel. The parameterization consists of an elasticcross section, its angular dependence (DCS), and a cross section for electronloss by inelastic scattering. The two cross sections (or the equivalent MFPs)are determined from fits to experimental data (EALs and measured anisotropyparameters). The elastic DCS is calculated ab initio for various clustermodels. Furthermore, they claim to find elastic and inelastic mean free pathsthat are much shorter than those for amorphous ice. We find that there are anumber of issues both with the approach of the authors and with the comparisonof their results with the literature. As outlined in the comment, the reportedvalues for elastic and inelastic mean free paths are questionable andconclusions regarding the difference between electron scattering in liquidwater and amorphous ice are invalid.

Comment on: An alternative approach for the determination of mean free paths of electron scattering in liquid water based on experimental data