Enhanced Strain Transfer and Optoelectronic Performance in MoS2 Devices via Formvar Encapsulation

Andres Castellanos-Gomez; Carmen Munuera; Onur Cakiroglu; Simeon N. Vladimirov; Thiago L. Vasconcelos

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 references

Enhanced Strain Transfer and Optoelectronic Performance in MoS2 Devices via Formvar Encapsulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin-coating Formvar or PMMA onto MoS2 roughly doubles its strain gauge factor and raises the usable strain limit from about 1.4% to 2.3%.

desk verdict Useful, systematic encapsulation study whose mechanical 2-fold strain enhancement holds up, but the headline 6-fold thermal gauge factor rests on subtracting an unverified intrinsic shift and should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07782 v1 pith:62OXZXNT submitted 2025-06-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Simeon N. Vladimirov , Onur Cakiroglu , Carmen Munuera , Andres Castellanos-Gomez , Thiago L. Vasconcelos This is my paper

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph

keywords MoS2FormvarpolyvinylformalPMMAencapsulationstrainengineeringgaugefactorflexiblesubstratephotodetector

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 sets out to show that a simple spin-coated polymer layer can greatly improve how strain is transferred to exfoliated monolayer and bilayer MoS2 flakes sitting on flexible polypropylene. The authors report that capping the flakes with polyvinyl formal (Formvar) or PMMA roughly doubles the mechanical strain gauge factor—the shift of the exciton energy per percent of applied strain, reaching about -50 meV/%—and increases the maximum strain the flake can take before slipping from about 1.4% to 2.3%. They further report a roughly sixfold increase in the thermal strain gauge factor, up to about -1.5 meV/°C, because the polymer layer adds its own thermal-expansion strain. In device tests, Formvar encapsulation also increases photocurrent, speeds up the response, and extends the lifetime of MoS2 photodetectors. If these claims hold, the result matters because it offers an inexpensive, vacuum-free route to higher-sensitivity strain sensors and more stable MoS2 optoelectronics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polymer capping film itself: about 110 nm of spin-coated Formvar, PMMA, or PC sitting on top of the MoS2 flake and the polypropylene substrate. Mechanically, the film clamps the flake to the substrate through polymer 'grabbing' forces and raises the effective Young's modulus of the assembly, so more of the substrate's bending strain is transferred into the MoS2 lattice instead of being lost to slippage. Thermally, the capping layer's own thermal expansion adds strain beyond what the polypropylene substrate alone produces, which the authors use to explain the larger thermal gauge factor. The measurement machinery is optical differential reflectance tracking of the A-exciton peak position under three-point bending and under temperature ramps, with the gauge factor defined as the slope of exciton energy versus strain; the maximum achievable strain is identified by a sudden break in that linear trend.

What would settle it

Measure the A-exciton peak position versus temperature for a PVFM-encapsulated monolayer MoS2 flake on a thermally inert substrate such as Si/SiO2, where no thermal strain is expected, and compare the slope with the -0.44 meV/°C baseline; a substantially different slope would invalidate the subtraction that yields the sixfold thermal gauge factor. A second check would be to recompute mechanical gauge factors with a fixed rule for dropping the initial 'settling' strain points rather than the paper's per-sample exclusion, to see whether the 2-fold enhancement survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a ~110 nm transparent polymer capping layer changes the mechanical coupling between a flexible substrate and MoS2 enough to roughly double the mechanical strain gauge factor and boost the thermal one sixfold. Averaged over 26 flakes, the A-exciton mechanical gauge factor moves from about -26 meV/% unencapsulated to about -52 meV/% with PVFM or PMMA, while all three tested polymers (PC, PVFM, PMMA) raise the maximum achievable strain from about 1.4% to about 2.3%, corresponding to bandgap shifts near -110 meV for monolayers. The thermal gauge factor, computed after subtracting the intrinsic MoS2 temperature shift, increases from about -0.20 meV/°C to about -1.45 meV/°C. In bilayer photodetector devices, PVFM encapsulation increases photocurrent, keeps the response linear up to about threefold higher light power, reduces noise, and extends the time to 50% responsivity in ambient air from about 9 days to about 28 days.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on two procedural assumptions: that the intrinsic MoS2 thermal bandgap shift measured on Si/SiO2 stays valid when the flake sits on polypropylene under a polymer cap, and that dropping the initial strain points as 'settling' does not bias the mechanical gauge-factor slopes; if either fails, the reported enhancement factors are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Monolayer and bilayer MoS2 on polypropylene with PVFM or PMMA capping should reach bandgap shifts of roughly -110 meV near the strain limit, making the flakes usable as strain-tunable emitters or sensors over a wider range than bare flakes.
The sixfold thermal gauge factor means encapsulated MoS2 on PP is sensitive enough to act as a temperature sensor with about -1.5 meV/°C exciton shift, more than six times the sensitivity of uncapped flakes.
PVFM-encapsulated MoS2 photodetectors should deliver faster, more reproducible photocurrent responses, with linear response up to roughly 300 mW/cm2, and about three times longer ambient lifetime before responsivity drops by half.
Because PC gives only an intermediate enhancement, the choice of encapsulant matters: stiffer polymers transfer mechanical strain better, and the authors tie the ordering to the polymers' Young's moduli.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not fully test is whether the mechanical and thermal enhancements can be tuned independently by choosing polymers with high Young's modulus but low thermal expansion (or vice versa), which would let a future study design an encapsulant optimized for a specific sensing mode.
The photocurrent improvement is attributed tentatively to electron donation from oxygen atoms in PVFM, but the paper does not isolate this doping effect from the strain-transfer effect; electrical transport measurements under encapsulation in inert atmosphere could separate the two.
If the optical gauge-factor doubling carries over to electrical strain sensors, spin-coated Formvar would be a cheaper, accessible alternative to the plasma-deposited adamantane capping that previously achieved the highest reported gauge factors, since the same simple polymer method is available in any lab.
The paper's comparison to literature uses the improvement factor rather than absolute gauge factor because the substrate matters; that suggests absolute gauge factors across studies should be compared only for identical substrate-encapsulation systems.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The mechanical results are the real content here, and they are solid. Across 26 flakes the paper shows that a simple spin-cast PVFM or PMMA layer roughly doubles the mechanical gauge factor and raises the maximum achievable strain from ~1.4% to ~2.3%. The comparison of three polymers on the same substrate is a genuinely useful dataset, and the authors are appropriately careful: they flag the two-device lifetime comparison, they compare against prior encapsulation work including their own adamantane paper, and they don't oversell the mechanism behind the photocurrent improvement. I believe the mechanical 2-fold enhancement and the maximum-strain extension. The PL hyperspectral mapping is a nice spatial check, and the device-level responsivity shift of 8 to 16 meV at 0.4% strain independently reproduces the 2-fold factor, which I did not expect from a two-point measurement.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. The ~6-fold thermal gauge factor is obtained by subtracting an intrinsic thermal shift of -0.44/-0.45 meV/°C taken from Ref. 31, a prior paper from the same group on MoS2 on Si/SiO2, from raw slopes measured on PP with polymer capping. There is no control measurement on a low-thermal-expansion substrate for these flakes or this exact stack. The bare thermal gauge factor is a small difference of comparable numbers, so the enhancement ratio is sensitive to that imported constant. If the intrinsic shift on the PP/polymer stack is meaningfully different, the 6-fold claim changes materially. This is not circular — the thermal slope is measured — but it is load-bearing for the abstract's headline number. The fix is either a control on a low-CTE substrate or a rephrased claim describing an 'effective' thermal gauge factor with the subtraction caveat explicit.

Two smaller issues. The mechanical fits exclude initial data points as 'settling' without a fixed criterion; that is a potential bias in the slopes, but with 26 samples and consistent trends I treat it as minor. The lifetime result is two devices; the authors say so, and I would not let that block publication.

Who gets value from this: anyone working on flexible 2D-material strain sensors or encapsulation strategies. The mechanical enhancement and strain-range extension are worth citing on their own. The thermal enhancement should be cited with a caveat until verified. This deserves a serious referee — the dataset is systematic and the claims are mostly testable — but the referee should push on the thermal subtraction before the 6-fold number goes into the literature as settled.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic study of spin-coated polymer encapsulation (PVFM/Formvar, PC, PMMA) on the strain response of exfoliated monolayer and bilayer MoS2 flakes on flexible polypropylene substrates. Using optical differential reflectance on 26 samples, the authors report that PVFM and PMMA encapsulation roughly doubles the mechanical strain gauge factor (from about -26 to about -52 meV/%), increases the thermal gauge factor by roughly 6-fold (from about -0.20 to about -1.45 meV/°C after subtracting an intrinsic thermal band-gap shift), and raises the maximum achievable strain from about 1.4% to about 2.3%. A case study on MoS2 photodetectors further reports increased and faster photocurrent response and extended device lifetime after PVFM encapsulation. The central methodological claim is that the polymer capping layer improves strain transfer through clamping and adds thermal-expansion strain on heating.

Significance. If the results are sound, the paper offers a practical, inexpensive route to improve strain sensing and band-gap tunability in flexible MoS2 devices, with clear technological relevance. The study's strengths are its systematic sample count (26 flakes, 30 mechanical and 28 thermal measurements), the explicit comparison of three polymers, and the direct before/after device measurements. However, the headline thermal enhancement depends on subtracting an intrinsic thermal shift taken from a prior work on a different substrate, and the mechanical gauge-factor extraction relies on an exclusion criterion for initial data points that is not fixed a priori. These issues make the quantitative claims stronger than the current evidence supports, though the underlying idea and much of the data are valuable.

major comments (3)

[§3.1, Figure 1d and Figure 2b] The ~6-fold thermal gauge-factor enhancement is computed by subtracting the intrinsic MoS2 thermal band-gap shift of -0.44 meV/°C (monolayer) and -0.45 meV/°C (bilayer), taken from Ref. 31 for flakes on Si/SiO2, from the raw reflectance slopes measured on PP with polymer capping. This subtraction is the load-bearing step for the thermal claim, but the manuscript provides no evidence that the intrinsic electron-phonon shift is unchanged by the PP substrate, the polymer capping layer, or the strain state, nor that the intrinsic and strain-induced shifts are strictly additive. The sensitivity is large: for the representative curves in Figure 1d, subtracting -0.44 meV/°C from the raw slopes -0.64 and -2.6 meV/°C gives -0.20 and -2.16 meV/°C, a ratio near 11, whereas the averaged values in the text give roughly 7; different plausible intrinsic values on the PP/polymer stack would change the reported factor substantially. I recommend adding a control measurement on a low-thermal-expansion substrate with the same flake and stack, or at minimum a quantitative sensitivity analysis of the enhancement ratio to the assumed intrinsic shift, before the 6-fold claim can be considered established.
[§3.1, Figure 1c and text near 'excluding the initial data points'] The mechanical gauge factors are obtained from linear fits that exclude initial data points because of 'flake and substrate settling,' but no fixed criterion is given for how many points are excluded or how the settling region is identified. This creates a potential bias in the slopes, and since the 2-fold enhancement claim is based on comparing such slopes, the robustness of the result to the exclusion window must be demonstrated. I request that the authors state the number of excluded points per sample, show the fits with and without the excluded points, and report confidence intervals or a statistical test (e.g., a two-sample comparison) for the difference between encapsulated and unencapsulated groups. The definition of maximum achievable strain as the point of 'abrupt variation' should also be made operational.
[§3.2, Figure 4f and Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions state that PVFM encapsulation extends device lifetime, but the supporting data in Figure 4f compare only one encapsulated and one unencapsulated device each. The text acknowledges 'these results are based on only two devices,' which is appropriate, but the broad claim in the abstract should either be supported by more devices or qualified to reflect the limited statistics. The same applies to the general statement about 'increased and faster photocurrent response,' which is illustrated on a single device pair.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical issues that should be corrected: 'Especially' is capitalized mid-sentence in the Introduction, 'has been showed' should be 'has been shown', 'respectivelly' should be 'respectively', 'in regarding to' should be 'in regard to', and 'absorbents' in the conclusions likely should be 'adsorbates'.
[Keywords and text] The polymer is referred to as both 'PVFM' and 'PVF M' in different places; please use one consistent abbreviation throughout.
[Figure 2 caption] The caption says '(a,b) the A exciton gauge factor and (c) the maximum achievable strain,' but the text in Section 3.1 refers to mechanical and thermal strain results in a way that is not fully aligned with the panel labels; please make the panel assignments explicit in the caption.
[§3.1, paragraph after Figure 2] The sentence 'The observed average thermally induced strain gauge factors correspond to strains rates of approximately 0.10% per 10°C and 0.31% per 10°C' should explain how the conversion from meV/°C to strain/°C is made; as written, the conversion factor is not stated and the reader cannot easily verify the numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: gauge factors are measured slopes and the thermal subtraction is an external calibration, not an input that forces the claimed enhancement.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The mechanical gauge factors are obtained as the slopes of linear fits to tracked A-exciton peak positions versus applied uniaxial strain, and the maximum achievable strain is read off as the point where the energy-shift trend breaks; these are direct measurements, not predictions derived from the claimed enhancement. The thermal gauge factors are raw slopes of peak position versus temperature minus an intrinsic thermal band-gap shift of -0.44 meV/°C (monolayer) and -0.45 meV/°C (bilayer) taken from Ref. 31. That subtraction is a calibration imported from a prior published study on Si/SiO2 substrates; it is not fitted to the present data and does not define the enhancement into existence. The raw encapsulated thermal slope (-2.6 meV/°C) is already substantially larger than the unencapsulated slope (-0.64 meV/°C), so the qualitative enhancement does not reduce to the subtracted constant. The quantitative '~6-fold' ratio does depend on the numerical value of the intrinsic shift, and if that shift were different on the PP/polymer stack the quoted ratio would change; that is a robustness/correctness limitation, not circularity. The photocurrent, spectral-response, and lifetime results are direct before/after device comparisons with no fitted input renamed as a prediction. No equation in the paper defines an output as equivalent to an input, and the load-bearing self-citation (Ref. 31) is an external published measurement, which counts as independent support under the reviewing rules. Conclusion: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper to force the result; the mechanical gauge factors are measured slopes. The only imported numerical input is the intrinsic thermal shift from Ref 31, a prior paper from the same group, which is the main sensitivity of the thermal claim. The polymer n-doping explanation for photocurrent improvement is a stated hypothesis, not a new entity.

free parameters (1)

Intrinsic thermal band-gap shift of MoS2 = -0.44 meV/°C (monolayer), -0.45 meV/°C (bilayer)
Taken from Ref 31 and subtracted from the measured reflectance thermal slopes to convert them into thermal strain gauge factors. The reported ~6-fold thermal enhancement changes if this value is not valid for PP-mounted, polymer-encapsulated flakes.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The intrinsic thermal band-gap redshift values used for subtraction (-0.44 and -0.45 meV/°C) remain valid for MoS2 on PP and under polymer encapsulation.
Invoked in Section 3.1 when computing thermal strain gauge factors. If encapsulation changes the temperature dependence of the bandgap, the 6-fold enhancement is not established.
domain assumption The differential reflectance peak energy tracks the true strain-induced exciton shift, and optical interference from the polymer layer is fully handled by fitting inverted spectra.
Encapsulated samples show inverted reflectance spectra due to interference (Section 3.1), and the analysis treats peak positions as exciton energies. Residual strain-dependent interference would bias the gauge factor.
ad hoc to paper Initial data points in a strain sweep can be excluded as flake-substrate settling, and the remaining points define a linear strain response.
The exclusion rule in Section 3.1 has no quantitative criterion, so the fitted slopes depend on a discretionary choice; however, the same rule is applied to all sample groups.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Strain Transfer and Optoelectronic Performance in MoS2 Devices via Formvar Encapsulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/62OXZXNT

@misc{pith2026250607782,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Strain Transfer and Optoelectronic Performance in MoS2 Devices via Formvar Encapsulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/62OXZXNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07782}
}

read the original abstract

We systematically investigate the influence of polyvinyl formal (PVFM), commonly known as Formvar, in comparison to polycarbonate (PC) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), as encapsulation materials on the strain performance of MoS2 monolayer and bilayer flakes on flexible polypropylene (PP) substrates. Notably, optical differential reflectance measurements reveal that PVFM and PMMA encapsulation significantly enhances the mechanical and thermal strain gauge factors by approximately 2-fold (up to ~-50 meV/%) and 6-fold (up to ~-1.5 meV/{\deg}C), respectively, while PC shows a slightly lower enhancement. Moreover, all three polymers increase the maximum achievable strain from approximately 1.4% to 2.3%. Furthermore, devices fabricated on PP substrates exhibit improved optoelectronic performance when encapsulated with PVFM, including increased and faster photocurrent response and extended device lifetime.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[2]

https://doi.org/10.1021/nn203879f

ACS Nano 2011, 5 (12), 9703–9709. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn203879f. (5) Carrascoso, F.; Li, H.; Frisenda, R.; Castellanos -gomez, A. Strain Engineering in Single -, Bi- and Tri-Layer MoS 2 , MoSe 2 , WS 2 and WSe

doi:10.1021/nn203879f 2011
[3]

(6) Frisenda, R.; Drüppel, M.; Schmidt, R.; Michaelis de Vasconcellos, S.; Perez de Lara, D.; 19 Bratschitsch, R.; Rohlfing, M.; Castellanos-Gomez, A

2021, 14 (6), 1698–1703. (6) Frisenda, R.; Drüppel, M.; Schmidt, R.; Michaelis de Vasconcellos, S.; Perez de Lara, D.; 19 Bratschitsch, R.; Rohlfing, M.; Castellanos-Gomez, A. Biaxial Strain Tuning of the Optical Properties of Single-Layer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2017, 1 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41699-017-0013-7. (7...

work page arXiv 2021
[5]

(21) Xing, H.; Wang, X.; Xu, C.; Du, H.; Li, R.; Zhao, Z.; Qiu, W

https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6246. (21) Xing, H.; Wang, X.; Xu, C.; Du, H.; Li, R.; Zhao, Z.; Qiu, W. Spectral Mechanical Investigation of the Elastic Interface between a MoS2/Graphene Heterostructure and a Soft Substrate. Carbon N. Y. 2023, 204, 566–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2023.01.014. (22) Niehues, I.; Blob, A.; Stiehm, T.; Michaelis De V...

work page arXiv
[265]

(20) Liu, Z.; Amani, M.; Najmaei, S.; Xu, Q.; Zou, X.; Zhou, W.; Yu, T.; Qiu, C.; Birdwell, A

https://doi.org/10.1039/c6nr06980k. (20) Liu, Z.; Amani, M.; Najmaei, S.; Xu, Q.; Zou, X.; Zhou, W.; Yu, T.; Qiu, C.; Birdwell, A. G.; Crowne, F. J.; Vajtai, R.; Yakobson, B. I.; Xia, Z.; Dubey, M.; Ajayan, P. M.; Lou, J. Strain and Structure Heterogeneity in MoS 2 Atomic Layers Grown by Che mical Vapour Deposition. Nat. Commun. 2014,

work page doi:10.1039/c6nr06980k
[2020]

(2) Roldán, R.; Castellanos -Gomez, A.; Cappelluti, E.; Guinea, F

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41699-020-00162-4. (2) Roldán, R.; Castellanos -Gomez, A.; Cappelluti, E.; Guinea, F. Strain Engineering in Semiconducting Two -Dimensional Crystals. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2015, 27 (31). https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/27/31/313201. (3) Lee, C.; Wei, X.; Kysar, J. W.; Hone, J. Measurement of the Elastic Properties and Intrins...

doi:10.1038/s41699-020-00162-4 2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

https://doi.org/10.1021/nn203879f

ACS Nano 2011, 5 (12), 9703–9709. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn203879f. (5) Carrascoso, F.; Li, H.; Frisenda, R.; Castellanos -gomez, A. Strain Engineering in Single -, Bi- and Tri-Layer MoS 2 , MoSe 2 , WS 2 and WSe

doi:10.1021/nn203879f 2011

[2] [3]

(6) Frisenda, R.; Drüppel, M.; Schmidt, R.; Michaelis de Vasconcellos, S.; Perez de Lara, D.; 19 Bratschitsch, R.; Rohlfing, M.; Castellanos-Gomez, A

2021, 14 (6), 1698–1703. (6) Frisenda, R.; Drüppel, M.; Schmidt, R.; Michaelis de Vasconcellos, S.; Perez de Lara, D.; 19 Bratschitsch, R.; Rohlfing, M.; Castellanos-Gomez, A. Biaxial Strain Tuning of the Optical Properties of Single-Layer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2017, 1 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41699-017-0013-7. (7...

work page arXiv 2021

[3] [5]

(21) Xing, H.; Wang, X.; Xu, C.; Du, H.; Li, R.; Zhao, Z.; Qiu, W

https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6246. (21) Xing, H.; Wang, X.; Xu, C.; Du, H.; Li, R.; Zhao, Z.; Qiu, W. Spectral Mechanical Investigation of the Elastic Interface between a MoS2/Graphene Heterostructure and a Soft Substrate. Carbon N. Y. 2023, 204, 566–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2023.01.014. (22) Niehues, I.; Blob, A.; Stiehm, T.; Michaelis De V...

work page arXiv

[4] [265]

(20) Liu, Z.; Amani, M.; Najmaei, S.; Xu, Q.; Zou, X.; Zhou, W.; Yu, T.; Qiu, C.; Birdwell, A

https://doi.org/10.1039/c6nr06980k. (20) Liu, Z.; Amani, M.; Najmaei, S.; Xu, Q.; Zou, X.; Zhou, W.; Yu, T.; Qiu, C.; Birdwell, A. G.; Crowne, F. J.; Vajtai, R.; Yakobson, B. I.; Xia, Z.; Dubey, M.; Ajayan, P. M.; Lou, J. Strain and Structure Heterogeneity in MoS 2 Atomic Layers Grown by Che mical Vapour Deposition. Nat. Commun. 2014,

work page doi:10.1039/c6nr06980k

[5] [2020]

(2) Roldán, R.; Castellanos -Gomez, A.; Cappelluti, E.; Guinea, F

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41699-020-00162-4. (2) Roldán, R.; Castellanos -Gomez, A.; Cappelluti, E.; Guinea, F. Strain Engineering in Semiconducting Two -Dimensional Crystals. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2015, 27 (31). https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/27/31/313201. (3) Lee, C.; Wei, X.; Kysar, J. W.; Hone, J. Measurement of the Elastic Properties and Intrins...

doi:10.1038/s41699-020-00162-4 2015