Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Correlated Structural and Optical Characterization of Hexagonal Boron Nitride

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Characterization tools and common cleaning treatments themselves alter the optical activity, surface residue, and morphology of hexagonal boron nitride, so any hBN quantum-emitter experiment must account for these induced changes.

desk verdict A useful correlative study that overstates oxygen-plasma brightening in the conclusions, but the core observation that measurements and treatments perturb hBN is solid and deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14408 v2 pith:W2B7KHPC submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph

Jordan A. Gusdorff , Pia Bhatia , Trey T. Shin , Alexandra Sofia Uy-Tioco , Benjamin N. Sailors , Rachael N. Keneipp , Marija Drndić , Lee C. Bassett This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords hexagonalboronnitridehBNquantumemittersphotoluminescencetransmissionelectronmicroscopypoly(dimethylsiloxane)residueoxygenplasmatreatmentannealingcorrelative
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 establishes that the standard tools and treatments used to study hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) are not passive: photoluminescence (PL) microscopy photobleaches the material's emission, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) changes both surface residue and emission characteristics, oxygen plasma thins the flake and diffuses its emission, and annealing warps and cracks the flake while redistributing residue and reducing optical activity. By correlating PL, TEM, and atomic-force microscopy on the same suspended flakes, the authors show that surface contamination from polymer transfer is substantial and that its evolution under electron irradiation tracks non-monotonic changes in luminescence. The practical payoff is a cautionary but constructive message: experiments aiming to identify or engineer quantum emitters in hBN must treat the measurement itself as a variable, and the correlated multi-modal platform they demonstrate can be adapted to other two-dimensional materials.

What carries the argument

The central object is a correlated measurement platform: mechanically exfoliated multilayer hBN flakes (about 10–30 nm thick) suspended over focused-ion-beam-milled holes in silicon nitride membranes, which are compatible with both confocal photoluminescence and transmission electron microscopy. The argument is carried by three quantitative tools: an image-processing routine that thresholds TEM micrographs to compute contamination coverage and residue-size distributions; an emitter-family analysis that fits PL image histograms to extract background, density, and brightness of emitter groups; and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy mapping that ties the residue to silicon, carbon, and oxygen, consistent with polydimethylsiloxane transfer contamination.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to acquire TEM images of the same hBN region before and after electron irradiation using a parameter-free residue quantification method (for example, manual segmentation by multiple independent observers or machine learning trained on labeled images) and compare the resulting coverage curves; if the non-monotonic peak at 25 minutes disappears under ground-truth segmentation, the claimed dose-dependent residue evolution would not be supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the microscopy techniques themselves induce changes in hBN's optical activity and residue morphology: PL measurements induce photobleaching, whereas TEM measurements alter surface residue and emission characteristics. They further claim that oxygen plasma treatment results in thinning of hBN and reduces surface residue while brightening and diffusing PL emission, whereas annealing induces warping and cracking in hBN flakes and results in an increase or re-distribution of surface residue while reducing optical activity overall. These conclusions rest on a custom sample platform—hBN flakes suspended over holes in silicon nitride membranes—that allows the same flake to be examined sequentially with confocal PL, TEM, and AFM, together with quantitative image analysis of contamination coverage and emitter-family statistics.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative contamination coverage and residue size distributions rest on an image-processing routine whose parameters (threshold intensity, minimum area, morphological kernel) were chosen by visual inspection on the same TEM images from which the reported values are drawn, with no ground-truth masks or raw images provided, so the non-monotonic residue trend could shift with parameter choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, any experiment that first images hBN with TEM and then measures PL cannot assume the observed emission reflects the pristine material; the electron beam itself modifies residue and emission.
  • Oxygen plasma, often used as a cleaning step, measurably thins hBN and can brighten and diffuse its emission, so its use changes the very defect landscape under study.
  • Annealing, commonly expected to stabilize or brighten emitters, can instead warp the flake, increase surface residue, and reduce optical activity, at least for flakes in this thickness range.
  • Quantitative contamination coverage provides a concrete metric for comparing sample-transfer methods and cleaning recipes, enabling future optimization that avoids etching the hBN itself.
  • The same correlated platform can be applied to other two-dimensional materials to separate intrinsic properties from measurement-induced changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely editorial extension is that some previously reported 'activation' of hBN emitters by electron irradiation or annealing may actually reflect electron-beam-induced residue redistribution or Fermi-level shifts rather than the creation of new intrinsic defects.
  • The non-monotonic residue trend (coverage rising to 25 minutes, then falling by 40 minutes) suggests a dose-dependent competition between hydrocarbon polymerization and beam-induced removal; this could be tested directly with in-situ mass spectrometry or controlled hydrocarbon partial pressures.
  • A testable extension would be to perform the same correlated measurements on flakes transferred by a residue-free method (for example, dry transfer with clean stamps) to isolate whether the observed optical changes are intrinsic to hBN or mediated by PDMS residue.
  • The reported recipe dependence of oxygen plasma effects implies that an optimized cleaning protocol might remove residue without etching the hBN; systematic parameter sweeps with the correlated platform could identify such a window.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a correlative structural and optical study of exfoliated hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) flakes suspended over holes in silicon nitride membranes, combining confocal photoluminescence (PL) microscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The authors present evidence that the measurement techniques themselves alter the samples: prolonged laser exposure causes photobleaching of localized emitters, while electron-beam irradiation in the TEM restructures surface contamination (attributed to PDMS transfer residue) and changes the optical emission, including a shift from localized to diffuse emission. They also compare two common treatments: oxygen plasma (studied on Samples B, D, and F) is reported to thin the flakes, reduce surface residue, and convert localized to diffuse emission, with a large brightness increase in Sample D; annealing (Samples C and E) is reported to increase roughness, warp/crack the flake (Sample C), increase or redistribute residue, and reduce localized emission. The central message is that correlated characterization is necessary because microscopy and treatments themselves modify hBN's optical activity and surface chemistry.

Significance. If the qualitative findings hold, this is a useful and timely cautionary study for the hBN quantum-emitter community. Its strengths include the genuinely correlative use of PL and TEM on the same flakes, the EDS confirmation of PDMS-related residue, the direct visual evidence for electron-beam-induced residue restructuring, and the explicit reporting of image-processing parameters with a partial robustness check for Sample A. The paper is also honest in several places about sample-to-sample variability. However, the significance is moderated by the small number of samples per treatment (often one or two), the reliance on user-tuned image segmentation for quantitative residue claims, and the overgeneralized wording in the abstract and conclusions regarding oxygen-plasma 'brightening' and annealing-induced 'warping and cracking.' These issues are fixable with rephrasing and additional uncertainty reporting, but they are load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV (Conclusions)] The statement that oxygen plasma treatment results in 'brightening and diffusing PL emission' is not supported by the paper's own data across all samples. In SI Sec. VII, Sample B, treated with the identical 5-min, 50-W, 50-sccm recipe as Sample D, shows background brightness returning to the initial level after plasma (Fig. S10c), and Sample F, treated with the lower-flow recipe, shows little change in overall optical activity (Fig. S11c). The main text itself concedes that 'changes in brightness were less consistent' (Sec. III.B). The robust, reproducible effects are morphological (thinning, residue reduction) and the localized-to-diffuse transition. The abstract and conclusions should be reworded to describe brightness changes as sample-dependent rather than a categorical brightening effect.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. IV (Conclusions)] The conclusion that 'annealing induces warping and cracking in hBN flakes' is based primarily on TEM observation of Sample C (Sec. III.A, Fig. 4i,j). Sample E, annealed with the same recipe, is reported to show substantially increased roughness but no mention of cracking or warping (Sec. III.B, Fig. 5f-i). The categorical wording overgeneralizes from a single flake. The conclusion should be qualified to state that annealing can induce warping and cracking (observed in Sample C) and that increased roughness is the more consistently observed morphological change.
  3. [SI Secs. IV-V and Figs. S6-S8] The quantitative contamination coverage values (Sample A: 19% after 40 min; Sample B: 25% to 7%; Sample C: 7% to 23%) rest on image-processing parameters that were selected by visual inspection on the same TEM images being quantified. For Sample A, the authors provide a welcome robustness check across three parameter sets (Fig. S6k-l) showing that the non-monotonic trend is stable. However, no equivalent sensitivity analysis is provided for Samples B and C, where the parameters were re-optimized (SI Sec. V). Since the plasma-vs-annealing comparison uses these numbers, the authors should either provide similar robustness data for Samples B and C or explicitly label the coverage values as semi-quantitative. This is a load-bearing issue for the quantitative residue claims, though the qualitative visual trends are clear.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption reads 'Effects of annealing on Sample B and O2 plasma on Sample C', which is the reverse of the text and figure content: Sample B received oxygen plasma and Sample C received annealing. This should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. II.B, para. 5] The sentence 'Figure 2e illustrates the dramatic qualitative change in the fluorescence properties following TEM imaging' should refer to Fig. 3e, not Fig. 2e, since the PL images and emitter family analysis are in Fig. 3.
  3. [Methods G] The sentence 'oxygen plasma at 50W with flow rate of 25 or 50 sccm for 5 or 10 minutes, respectively' is ambiguous about which flow rate pairs with which duration. The main text and SI indicate 50 sccm for 5 min and 25 sccm for 10 min; the sentence should be rephrased to avoid confusion.
  4. [Methods D and Fig. 3c,f] The emitter family analysis selects the number of groups based on reduced chi-squared, but no uncertainties are reported for the fitted density and brightness parameters, and no threshold for a 'significant' change (e.g., the reported factor-of-3 decrease in density/brightness) is defined. Reporting confidence intervals or fit residuals would strengthen the quantitative interpretation.
  5. [SI Sec. VII] In the paragraph describing Fig. S10, the text refers to 'Fig. 4.2' in one place; this should be 'Fig. 4' or a more specific panel reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical before/after study with direct measurements and robustness checks; same-group citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical characterization study and contains no derivation chain in which a reported result is constructed from its own inputs. The central claims — PL photobleaching, TEM-induced changes to residue and optical activity, and the morphological and optical effects of annealing and oxygen plasma — are supported by direct before/after measurements (Figs. 2–5; SI Figs. S10–S11), including a vacuum-only control (SI Fig. S9) that isolates electron-beam effects from the TEM environment. The emitter-family analysis is imported from Breitweiser et al. [21], a same-group citation, but it is a published statistical fitting procedure used as a measurement tool; the paper's conclusions do not depend on that citation as an unverified theorem, and the other same-group citations (Bhatia et al. [36], Keneipp et al. [26]) concern transfer protocols and prior observations rather than load-bearing evidence for the present findings. The TEM residue quantification uses user-selected image-processing parameters optimized by visual inspection on the analyzed images, but this is calibration of a measurement, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction; the authors explicitly checked that the non-monotonic trend persists across three parameter sets (SI Fig. S6k,l), so the result is not forced by parameter choice. No equation, definition, or uniqueness claim makes any reported quantity equal to its inputs by construction. The abstract/conclusion statement that oxygen plasma 'brightens' PL emission overgeneralizes the paper's own SI data (Samples B and F show no net brightening), but that is a correctness or accuracy concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its empirical claims depend on several domain assumptions about what the images represent (residue vs. hBN, emitter groups vs. background) and on user-chosen analysis parameters that affect quantified results. These are documented in the main text and SI.

free parameters (2)
  • Emitter family fit parameters (background level, density, brightness per emitter group) = Sample-specific, e.g., density/brightness decrease by a factor of ~3 after photobleaching in Sample A
    Extracted by fitting histograms of PL pixel intensities; the number of emitter groups is chosen by reduced chi-squared. These fitted values underlie the reported photobleaching and treatment-effect factors.
  • Contamination segmentation parameters (threshold intensity, minimum area, morphological kernel) = For Sample A: i=175, amin=9 nm², km=1.0 nm²; separate sets optimized for Samples B and C
    Chosen by visual inspection on the analyzed TEM images; sensitivity analysis across parameter sets shows changes of a few percent, but the reported coverage values (e.g., 19% at 40 min) depend on these choices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PL intensity decomposes into a uniform background plus discrete emitter groups that follow Gaussian intensity distributions
    The emitter family analysis assumes this decomposition; it is standard (Breitweiser et al.) but unproven for each image, and cannot be applied to regions with spatial brightness gradients.
  • domain assumption The dark lacey features seen in TEM are surface residue from PDMS transfer
    Supported by EDS maps showing Si, C, O correlated with the features and by prior work, but the exact chemical identity is inferred rather than measured.
  • domain assumption The observed optical changes after TEM exposure are caused by the electron beam rather than the vacuum environment
    The authors include a control (Sample A in vacuum for 1.5 hours) showing no change, supporting this assumption; the electron-beam mechanism remains one of several possibilities, including Fermi level shifts and knock-on damage.
  • domain assumption Samples B, C, D, and E are comparable because they were fabricated with identical protocols and have similar thickness
    Treatment comparisons across different samples assume no uncontrolled variations in flake quality or transfer residue; the authors acknowledge this by discussing selection bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlated Structural and Optical Characterization of Hexagonal Boron Nitride." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W2B7KHPC

@misc{pith2026241114408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlated Structural and Optical Characterization of Hexagonal Boron Nitride},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W2B7KHPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14408}
}
abstract

Hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) plays a central role in nanoelectronics and nanophotonics. Moreover, hBN hosts room-temperature quantum emitters and optically addressable spins, making it promising for quantum sensing and quantum photonics. Despite many investigations of their optical properties, however, the emitters' chemical structure remains unclear, as does the role of contamination at surfaces and interfaces in forming the emitters or modifying their properties. We prepare hBN samples that are compatible with confocal photoluminescence (PL) microscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and atomic-force microscopy (AFM), and we use those techniques to quantitatively investigate correlations between fluorescent emission, flake morphology, and surface residue. We find that the microscopy techniques themselves induce changes in hBN's optical activity and residue morphology: PL measurements induce photobleaching, whereas TEM measurements alter surface residue and emission characteristics. We also study the effects of common treatments $\unicode{x2014}$ annealing and oxygen plasma cleaning $\unicode{x2014}$ on the structure and optical activity of hBN. The methods can be broadly applied to study two-dimensional materials, and the results illustrate the importance of correlative studies to elucidate structural factors that influence hBN's functionality as a host for quantum emitters and spin defects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. summarizes the sample geometry along with the different characterization methods and treatments we explore in this work. We report results for six hBN samples, labeled A through F, each of which received a distinct sequence of measurements and treatments that are summarized in Table S1 in the Supporting Information. Sample preparation begins by mechanically exfoliating flakes of hBN from bulk crystal (HQ Graphene) a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [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 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. B. D.-a.-j.-w.-i. Shaik and P. Palla, Scientific Reports 11, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    N. R. Jungwirth, B. Calderon, Y . Ji, M. G. Spencer, M. E. Flatté, and G. D. Fuchs, Nano Letters 16, 6052 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    C. R. Dean, A. F. Young, I. Meric, C. Lee, L. Wang, S. Sor- genfrei, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, K. L. Shepard, and J. Hone, Nature Nanotechnology 5, 722 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    G. L. Yu, R. Jalil, B. Belle, A. S. Mayorov, P. Blake, F. Schedin, S. V . Morozov, L. A. Ponomarenko, F. Chiappini, S. Wiedmann, U. Zeitler, M. I. Katsnelson, A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, and D. C. Elias, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 3282 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Kuiri, C

    M. Kuiri, C. Kumar, B. Chakraborty, S. N. Gupta, M. H. Naik, M. Jain, A. K. Sood, and A. Das, Nanotechnology 26, 10.1088/0957-4484/26/48/485704 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1088/0957-4484/26/48/485704 2015

  6. [6]

    T. T. Tran, C. Elbadawi, D. Totonjian, C. J. Lobo, G. Grosso, H. Moon, D. R. Englund, M. J. Ford, I. Aharonovich, and M. Toth, ACS Nano 10, 7331 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    A. L. Exarhos, D. A. Hopper, R. R. Grote, A. Alkauskas, and L. C. Bassett, ACS Nano 11, 3328 (2017). 10

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Mendelson, Z

    N. Mendelson, Z. Q. Xu, T. T. Tran, M. Kianinia, J. Scott, C. Bradac, I. Aharonovich, and M. Toth, ACS Nano 13, 3132 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    R. N. Patel, D. A. Hopper, J. A. Gusdorff, M. E. Turiansky, T.- Y . Huang, R. E. K. Fishman, B. Porat, C. G. Van de Walle, and L. C. Bassett, PRX Quantum 3, 1 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    A. L. Exarhos, D. A. Hopper, R. N. Patel, M. W. Doherty, and L. C. Bassett, Nature Communications 10, 10.1038/s41467- 018-08185-8 (2019)

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Chejanovsky, A

    N. Chejanovsky, A. Mukherjee, J. Geng, Y . C. Chen, Y . Kim, A. Denisenko, A. Finkler, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. B. R. Dasari, P. Auburger, A. Gali, J. H. Smet, and J. Wrachtrup, Na- ture Materials 20, 1079 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    N. J. Guo, S. Li, W. Liu, Y . Z. Yang, X. D. Zeng, S. Yu, Y . Meng, Z. P. Li, Z. A. Wang, L. K. Xie, R. C. Ge, J. F. Wang, Q. Li, J. S. Xu, Y . T. Wang, J. S. Tang, A. Gali, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, Nature Communications 14, 10.1038/s41467-023- 38672-6 (2023)

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    R. N. Patel, R. E. Fishman, T. Y . Huang, J. A. Gusdorff, D. A. Fehr, D. A. Hopper, S. A. Breitweiser, B. Porat, M. E. Flatté, and L. C. Bassett, Nano Letters 10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c01333 (2024)

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    H. L. Stern, C. M. Gilardoni, Q. Gu, S. Eizagirre Barker, O. F. Powell, X. Deng, S. A. Fraser, L. Follet, C. Li, A. J. Ramsay, H. H. Tan, I. Aharonovich, and M. Atatüre, Nature Materials 23, 1379 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Akbari, W

    H. Akbari, W. H. Lin, B. Vest, P. K. Jha, and H. A. Atwater, Physical Review Applied 15, 1 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    N. V . Proscia, Z. Shotan, H. Jayakumar, P. Reddy, C. Cohen, M. Dollar, A. Alkauskas, M. Doherty, C. A. Meriles, and V . M. Menon, Optica 5, 1128 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Sajid and K

    A. Sajid and K. S. Thygesen, 2D Materials (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    F. Yang, G. Stando, A. Thompson, D. Gundurao, L. Li, and H. Liu, Accounts of Materials Research 3, 1022 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    S. X. Li, T. Ichihara, H. Park, G. He, D. Kozawa, Y . Wen, V . B. Koman, Y . Zeng, M. Kuehne, Z. Yuan, S. Faucher, J. H. Warner, and M. S. Strano, Communications Materials 4, 1 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Wigger, R

    D. Wigger, R. Schmidt, O. Del Pozo-Zamudio, J. A. Preuß, P. Tonndorf, R. Schneider, P. Steeger, J. Kern, Y . Khodaei, J. Sperling, S. M. De Vasconcellos, R. Bratschitsch, and T. Kuhn, 2D Materials 6, 10.1088/2053-1583/ab1188 (2019)

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    S. A. Breitweiser, A. L. Exarhos, R. N. Patel, J. Saouaf, B. Po- rat, D. A. Hopper, and L. C. Bassett, ACS Photonics 7, 288 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Fournier, A

    C. Fournier, A. Plaud, S. Roux, A. Pierret, M. Rosticher, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Buil, X. Quélin, J. Barjon, J. P. Hermier, and A. Delteil, Nature Communications 12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hayee, L

    F. Hayee, L. Yu, J. L. Zhang, C. J. Ciccarino, M. Nguyen, A. F. Marshall, I. Aharonovich, J. Vu ˇckovi´c, P. Narang, T. F. Heinz, and J. A. Dionne, Nature Materials 19, 534 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    N. Alem, R. Erni, C. Kisielowski, M. D. Rossell, W. Gannett, and A. Zettl, Physical Review B 80, 155425 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    T. A. Bui, G. T. Leuthner, J. Madsen, M. R. A. Monazam, A. I. Chirita, A. Postl, C. Mangler, J. Kotakoski, and T. Susi, Small 19, 10.1002/smll.202301926 (2023)

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    R. N. Keneipp, J. A. Gusdorff, P. Bhatia, T. T. Shin, L. C. Bas- sett, and M. Drndi´c, Journal of Physical Chemistry C128, 8741 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Li, Z.-Q

    C. Li, Z.-Q. Xu, N. Mendelson, M. Kianinia, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Nanophotonics 8, 2049 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Venturi, S

    G. Venturi, S. Chiodini, N. Melchioni, E. Janzen, J. H. Edgar, C. Ronning, and A. Ambrosio, Laser and Photonics Reviews 18, 39 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    S. S. Mohajerani, S. Chen, A. Alaei, T. Chou, N. Liu, Y . Ma, L. Xiao, S. S. Lee, E.-H. Yang, and S. Strauf, ACS Photonics 11, 2359 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Y . Chen, A. Gale, K. Yamamura, J. Horder, A. Condos, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Ap- plied Physics Letters 123, 10.1063/5.0155311 (2023)

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    T. T. Tran, K. Bray, M. J. Ford, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Nature Nanotechnology 11, 37 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    H. Ngoc, M. Duong, M. Anh, P. Nguyen, M. Kianinia, T. Ohshima, H. Abe, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. H. Edgar, I. Aharonovich, and M. Toth, ACS Applied Materials and Inter- faces 10.1021/acsami.8b07506 (2018)

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Egerton, P

    R. Egerton, P. Li, and M. Malac, Micron 35, 399 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Rykaczewski, W

    K. Rykaczewski, W. B. White, and A. G. Fedorov, Journal of Applied Physics 101, 10.1063/1.2437065 (2007)

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Egerton, Micron 119, 72 (2019)

    R. Egerton, Micron 119, 72 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Bhatia, T

    P. Bhatia, T. T. Shin, K. Kavetsky, B. N. Sailors, G. Siokos, A. S. Uy-Tioco, R. N. Keneipp, J. A. Gusdorff, L. C. Bassett, and M. Drndi´c, Micron , 103747 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Cheliotis and I

    I. Cheliotis and I. Zergioti, 2D Materials 11, 022004 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    A. Jain, P. Bharadwaj, S. Heeg, M. Parzefall, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and L. Novotny, Nanotechnology 29, 265203 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    D. J. Jang, M. M. Haidari, J. H. Kim, J.-Y . Ko, Y . Yi, and J. S. Choi, Nanomaterials 13, 1494 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Neumann, X

    M. Neumann, X. Wei, L. Morales-Inostroza, S. Song, S. G. Lee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Götzinger, and Y . H. Lee, ACS Nano 17, 11679 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Kotakoski, C

    J. Kotakoski, C. H. Jin, O. Lehtinen, K. Suenaga, and A. V . Krasheninnikov, Physical Review B 82, 113404 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    C. Dai, D. Popple, C. Su, J.-H. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Kong, and A. Zettl, Communications Chemistry 6, 108 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    S. M. Gilbert, G. Dunn, A. Azizi, T. Pham, B. Shevitski, E. Dimitrov, S. Liu, S. Aloni, and A. Zettl, Scientific Reports 7, 15096 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Fischer, J

    M. Fischer, J. M. Caridad, A. Sajid, S. Ghaderzadeh, M. Ghorbani-Asl, L. Gammelgaard, P. Bøggild, K. S. Thyge- sen, A. V . Krasheninnikov, S. Xiao, M. Wubs, and N. Stenger, Science advances 7, 10.1126/sciadv.abe7138 (2021)

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Y . S. Na, J. H. Kim, S. Kang, J. H. Jeong, S. Park, D. H. Kim, K. Ihm, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y .-K. Kwon, Y . D. Kim, and G.-H. Lee, 2D Materials 8, 045041 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Jadwiszczak, D

    J. Jadwiszczak, D. J. Kelly, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, and H. Zhang, ACS Applied Electronic Materials 3, 1505 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    S. Kim, M. S. Choi, D. Qu, C. H. Ra, X. Liu, M. Kim, Y . J. Song, and W. J. Yoo, 2D Materials3, 035002 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Zhang, Y

    G. Zhang, Y . Chang, and B. Yan, Crystals13, 304 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    A. G. F. Garcia, M. Neumann, F. Amet, J. R. Williams, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Nano Letters 12, 4449 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Lin, C.-C

    Y .-C. Lin, C.-C. Lu, C.-H. Yeh, C. Jin, K. Suenaga, and P.-W. Chiu, Nano Letters 12, 414 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    A. J. V . Griffiths and T. Walther, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 241, 012017 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Hugenschmidt, K

    M. Hugenschmidt, K. Adrion, A. Marx, E. Müller, and D. Gerthsen, Microscopy and Microanalysis 2, 10.1093/micmic/ozac003 (2022)

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Mitchell, Micron 73, 36 (2015)

    D. Mitchell, Micron 73, 36 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    V ogl, M

    T. V ogl, M. W. Doherty, B. C. Buchler, Y . Lu, and P. K. Lam, Nanoscale 11, 14362 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Mendelson, D

    N. Mendelson, D. Chugh, J. R. Reimers, T. S. Cheng, A. Gottscholl, H. Long, C. J. Mellor, A. Zettl, V . Dyakonov, P. H. Beton, S. V . Novikov, C. Jagadish, H. H. Tan, M. J. Ford, 11 M. Toth, C. Bradac, and I. Aharonovich, Nature Materials 20, 321 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Weston, D

    L. Weston, D. Wickramaratne, M. Mackoit, A. Alkauskas, and C. G. Van De Walle, Physical Review B 97, 10.1103/Phys- RevB.97.214104 (2018). Supporting Information for Correlated Structural and Optical Characterization of Hexagonal Boron Nitride Jordan A. Gusdorff, 1, 2,∗ Pia Bha...

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    S. M. Pizer, E. P. Amburn, J. D. Austin, R. Cromartie, A. Geselowitz, T. Greer, B. ter Haar Romeny, J. B. Zimmerman, and K. Zuiderveld, Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 39, 355 (1987)

    1987

  50. [58]

    Bradski and A

    G. Bradski and A. Kaehler, Dr. Dobb’s Journal Of Software Tools 3 (2000)

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.