Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Unlocking high coercivity at room temperature in phase modified MoS$_2$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that hydrothermally synthesized MoS2 powders containing up to 77% of the metallic 1T phase are ferromagnetic at room temperature with a coercivity of about 0.3 T, which the authors state is the highest room-temperature…

desk verdict High RT coercivity in 1T-MoS2 is a significant claim, but the missing raw data and controls keep me from fully trusting it until the authors provide them. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04905 v2 pith:TCPB7HJX submitted 2025-07-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Zainab Chowdhry , Kushal Mazumder , Praveen Hegde , Ajith Jena , Vidya Praveen Bhallamudi , Pramoda K. Nayak This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords room-temperatureferromagnetism1T-MoS2molybdenumdisulfidecoercivityinterplanardistancemagneticanisotropyhydrothermalsynthesistwo-dimensionalmagnets
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

The paper sets out to establish that a simple hydrothermal recipe converts MoS2 powder into a room-temperature ferromagnet with unusually high magnetic hardness. The samples are mixtures of the nonmagnetic 2H phase and the metallic 1T phase, and their magnetization-versus-field curves at 300 K show hysteresis with a coercive field of about 0.3 T and saturation up to 0.26 emu/g. The authors state this is the largest room-temperature coercivity reported for a two-dimensional magnet, exceeding values reported in MnSiTe3, WSe2/MoSe2 stacks, and CrI3. They further report that coercivity rises with the interlayer distance and with the fraction of 1T phase, suggesting a strain-based knob for tuning magnetic hardness. If the signal is genuine, MoS2 becomes a candidate rare-earth-free, solution-processable hard magnet for room-temperature spintronics.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is strain-driven magnetic anisotropy in lamellar 1T-MoS2, read through the (002) X-ray diffraction reflection. Because the 1T phase expands the van der Waals gap, the (002) peak appears at 2θ ≈ 9° instead of the 2H position near 14°, and Bragg's law converts this shift into the interplanar distance d (about 9.1 to 9.5 Å). Larger d is accompanied by higher 1T-phase fraction and higher coercivity. The paper proposes that intercalated ions in the lattice both stabilize the 1T phase and strain the Mo-S framework; following an earlier strain calculation, this changes the magnetocrystalline anisotropy and raises the field needed to reverse magnetic domains. The key structural identity is therefore d as a proxy for strain, and the key observable is the M-H loop after diamagnetic background subtraction.

What would settle it

The cleanest falsifier is a control experiment: prepare MoS2 powder by the same hydrothermal route but anneal it to convert the 1T phase back to 2H, then run the identical M-H measurement. If the roughly 0.3 T hysteresis loop persists, or if an identically processed pure 2H powder shows the same loop, the claim that phase-modified MoS2 is the source collapses. A supporting check is to track Hc in a deliberately intercalated series with fixed defect density: the proposed mechanism predicts Hc scales monotonically with d, while an impurity artifact would not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that phase-modified MoS2 retains magnetization against a reverse field of roughly 0.3 T at room temperature. In the paper's own terms, hydrothermally synthesized nanosheets with up to 77% 1T phase are ferromagnetic at 300 K, with the largest saturation magnetization reaching 0.26 emu/g; defects (sulfur vacancies and Mo5+ centers) and 1T-phase spin polarization together supply the moments. The coercivity is not incidental: across six nominally identical samples it grows from 0.003 T to about 0.3 T as the interplanar spacing inferred from the (002) XRD peak grows from 9.1 to 9.5 Å and the 1T area fraction grows from 32% to 77%. The authors interpret this as strain, likely from intercalated ions, increasing the magnetic anisotropy that resists magnetization reversal. This is what unlocking high coercivity means: interlayer expansion opens a two-order-of-magnitude tuning range for the coercive field in a two-dimensional magnet.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the raw VSM signal is a clean linear sum of a smooth diamagnetic background and a genuine ferromagnetic contribution, so that after subtracting the background the remaining hysteresis loop belongs to the MoS2 and not to the subtraction procedure or to trace ferromagnetic impurities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a cheap autoclave reaction can make a room-temperature hard magnetic material from earth-abundant elements, without rare-earth dopants.
  • Coercivity in MoS2 becomes a tunable structural parameter: changing the interlayer spacing from roughly 9.1 to 9.5 Å moves the coercive field from 0.003 T to about 0.3 T, so intercalation chemistry could set the magnetic hardness of a device layer.
  • Room-temperature two-dimensional ferromagnets with Hc near 0.3 T are strong enough for nonvolatile memory bits that are not erased by thermal fluctuations or small stray fields.
  • The correlation gives a concrete target for theory: calculate whether an interlayer expansion of about 0.4 Å can quantitatively produce the magnetocrystalline anisotropy required for a 0.3 T coercive field.
  • If the strain-anisotropy picture holds, the same phase-modification route could be applied to other transition-metal dichalcogenide layers, such as WS2 or MoSe2, to raise their coercivities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test this, but intercalating ions of different sizes (Li+, Na+, K+) into the same MoS2 batch should shift d monotonically; if the strain picture is right, Hc should rise with ionic radius at fixed defect density.
  • The 0.3 T coercivity is reported for stacked powder, not monolayers; if interlayer expansion is the source of anisotropy, exfoliated few-layer flakes would be expected to show much smaller coercivity, a prediction checkable with single-flake magneto-optical measurements.
  • Because the measured moment is far below the DFT moment of about 2 μB per Mo atom, most of the 1T phase may be nonmagnetic, and the ferromagnetism could sit in a small subset of defect-rich regions; that would make coercivity a property of those regions rather than of the 1T phase as a whole.
  • A practical consequence the authors only gesture at is that rare-earth-free, solution-processed powder with high Hc could be printed or cast into composite magnets for microdevices, but remanence and energy product would need to be measured first.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript reports hydrothermal synthesis of six MoS2 powders containing mixed 1T/2H phases and claims room-temperature ferromagnetism with coercivity Hc ~ 0.3 T and saturation magnetization up to 0.26 emu/g, which it states is the highest RT coercivity reported for a 2D magnet. The magnetism is attributed to the 1T phase and sulfur vacancies, and the paper proposes that increasing interplanar spacing (associated with strain and intercalation) raises coercivity through magnetic anisotropy. The evidence includes XRD, Raman, XPS, HRTEM, EPR, and VSM M-H loops presented after diamagnetic-background subtraction.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the result would be notable: a solution-processed layered material with record room-temperature coercivity and a structural knob (interlayer spacing) for tuning Hc would be of genuine interest for spintronics. The paper has several strengths: it combines structural, vibrational, and magnetic characterization; the EPR data provide a direct signature of sulfur vacancies; the use of multiple nominally identical syntheses to expose variability is transparent; and the d-Hc correlation, if robust, is a concrete and falsifiable claim. However, the load-bearing magnetic evidence is not currently verifiable because the background-subtraction details, raw curves, and controls are outside the main text, and the impurity exclusion relies on surface-sensitive XPS.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Figure 2] The central claim of a closed hysteresis loop with Hc ~ 0.3 T rests entirely on VSM data processed by subtracting a diamagnetic background from the sample and holder, yet the subtraction procedure and all raw M-H curves are in the Supporting Information, which the manuscript says is 'available from the author upon request.' Empty-cavity and Teflon-tape controls are insufficient to establish the diamagnetic slope of the 2H component in the powder itself, and the XPS survey cited for 'absence of magnetic impurities' is surface-sensitive and cannot exclude trace ferromagnetic precipitates from the hydrothermal precursors. Please include raw M-H data, the full subtraction protocol, a diamagnetic 2H-MoS2 powder control, and a bulk-sensitive impurity assay (e.g., ICP-MS) or a control in which the 1T phase is converted to 2H by annealing; without these, the intrinsic nature of the hysteresis is not established.
  2. [Section 2.1, Figure 2, Table 1] The quantitative claims are underdetermined by the presented data: Hc ~ 0.3 T is a single measurement on one sample, the excluded sample with Hc ~ 0.32 T lacks XRD, no error bars or repeated measurements are given for any magnetization value, and the M-H curves in Figure 2 are normalized in magnetic moment, making it impossible to verify absolute moments. Moreover, the abstract states 'a coercivity of ~0.3 T and a maximum saturation magnetization of 0.26 emu/g' as if they characterize the same material, whereas Figure 2's caption reports Ms ~ 0.05 emu/g for the S1 loop with Hc ~ 0.3 T. Please report calibrated M vs H for each sample (with mass), state clearly which sample gives each headline value, and provide repeated or averaged data.
  3. [Section 2.3, Figure 4(c)] The relationship between interplanar distance and Hc is the paper's main structural-correlation claim, but it is based on only six samples with no error bars on d, phase fraction, or Hc; the extracted Hc values span more than two orders of magnitude, and the Gaussian deconvolution used for d and 1T% is delegated to the SI. Please provide the tabulated values and uncertainties, the fit statistics for the correlation shown in Figure 4(c), and state whether the correlation is intended as linear or logarithmic. The mechanism proposed in this section—strain-enhanced magnetic anisotropy from interlayer expansion—is plausible but currently supported only by a single-layer DFT study (Ref. 36) and by the correlation itself; direct evidence of the intercalating species or of the anisotropy constant would substantially strengthen this part of the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The text says the crystal domain size is between 15 and 21 nm but then refers to 'D ~15 Å'; the unit appears to be a typo and should be nm.
  2. [Introduction] The phrase 'a few tens of Oesterds' should read 'Oersteds.'
  3. [References] References [25] and [41] appear to be the same paper (Ahmed et al., Chemistry of Materials 2017, 29, 9066); please consolidate or correct.
  4. [Section 4.2] The synthesis paragraph refers to the schematic 'as shown in Figure 1(b),' but Figure 1(b) is the HRTEM panel; the schematic appears to be Figure 1(a).
  5. [Figure 2 caption] The caption reports Ms ~ 0.05 emu/g for the 0.3 T loop, while the abstract reports a maximum saturation magnetization of 0.26 emu/g; please clarify which sample each value belongs to and avoid implying they occur in the same sample unless that is the case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: all reported quantities are direct measurements or empirical correlations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental: room-temperature ferromagnetism in phase-modified MoS2, a coercivity of ~0.3 T, a saturation magnetization of 0.26 emu/g, and a correlation between interplanar distance and coercivity. The coercivity and saturation magnetization are extracted from VSM M-H loops after a disclosed diamagnetic background subtraction; this is a standard measurement reduction, not a fit that predicts the same quantity from which it was derived. The correlation shown in Figure 4(c) is an empirical trend across six independently synthesized powders, not a parameter fitted to those same data points and then reported as a confirmation. The cited DFT moment of 2 μB/Mo and strain-induced anisotropy calculations (Yun[36]) are external support, but the reported Hc values are not outputs of those calculations; they are direct measurements. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no cited result is used to forbid alternative interpretations of the measured hysteresis. The absence of a phase-pure 2H control and of bulk-sensitive impurity assays is an experimental limitation affecting robustness and interpretation, but it does not make the derivation circular. The paper does not rename a known result or smuggle an ansatz via citation; it reports an empirical observation and proposes a strain-anisotropy mechanism as a plausible explanation. Therefore, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard but unverified phase and defect interpretations, on a background subtraction model, and on an inferred intercalant. The free-parameter count is zero because no model is fitted; the correlations are presented directly from data.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 1T phase of MoS2 is ferromagnetic.
    Cited from references 35 and 37 and used to attribute the observed hysteresis to the 1T phase in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Sulfur vacancies and edge defects produce unpaired spins and ferromagnetic exchange.
    Cited from references 31-34 and used to explain the origin of magnetism in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Strain from interlayer expansion changes magnetic anisotropy and coercivity.
    Cited from Yun et al., reference 36, and used to explain the coercivity variation in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption The measured M-H signal is a linear superposition of a diamagnetic background and a ferromagnetic component; subtracting the background recovers the true ferromagnetic loop.
    Standard magnetometry practice, but load-bearing because the central coercivity value is obtained after this subtraction in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The (002) XRD peak near 2 theta about 9 degrees corresponds to 1T-phase MoS2 with an enlarged interlayer spacing.
    Cited from reference 42 and used to compute interplanar distances and phase fractions in Section 2.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Intercalated ion in the MoS2 lattice
    purpose: Explains lattice expansion, 1T-phase stabilization, and increased coercivity via strain.
    The paper infers a lattice-intercalated ion to explain the enlarged d-spacing and 1T stabilization, but does not identify or directly detect the ion (Section 2.3). If this entity were absent, the strain-anisotropy mechanism would lose its proposed cause.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unlocking high coercivity at room temperature in phase modified MoS$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCPB7HJX

@misc{pith2026250704905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unlocking high coercivity at room temperature in phase modified MoS$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCPB7HJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04905}
}
abstract

Two-dimensional (2D) materials showing room-temperature magnetism and high coercivity are desired for combining magnetism with semiconducting properties useful for spintronics. In this work, the magnetic properties of the 1T phase of MoS$_2$ have been studied at room temperature. We observe ferromagnetism with a coercivity of ~0.3 T and a maximum saturation magnetization of 0.26 emu/g at room temperature. This is the highest among coercivities reported so far in 2D magnets at room temperature. MoS$_2$ nanosheets are prepared using a single-step hydrothermal synthesis with a relative 1T-phase reaching up to 77%. We report a correlation between the structural and magnetic characteristics via interplanar distance and coercivity. The increase in interplanar distance is also accompanied by an increase in the 1T phase. Our results pave a useful way of controlling the coercivity and saturation magnetization in a 2D magnet with applications in spintronics and low-power quantum devices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Defects, such as vacancies, can lead to dangling bonds

    Introduction Recent discoveries of layered materials and particularly magnetism in them have driven investigations to understand their underlying physics and exploring suitable applications.[1–9] Many two-dimensional (2D) magnets identified exhibit intrinsic magnetic behavior only at low temperatures, with a few exceptions, such as Fe 5GeTe₂ and Fe₃GaTe₂....

    work page

  2. [2]

    Results and Discussions 2.1. Structural characterization and phase identification of the synthesized MoS2 samples We report data on six MoS2 powders, S1-S6, prepared using the hydrothermal method as shown in Figure 1. The synthesis details are given in Section 4.2. These are mixtures of 2H and 1T phases of MoS2 as identified by High-Resolution TEM scans o...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The nanosheets were prepared using a single-step hydrothermal synthesis method with a substantial 1T phase

    Conclusions In this work, the magnetic pr operties of the 1T phase of MoS 2 have been studied at room temperature. The nanosheets were prepared using a single-step hydrothermal synthesis method with a substantial 1T phase . The obtained MoS 2 nanosheets exhibit room-temperature ferromagnetism with one of the highest reported coercivities of ~0.3 T. We als...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Experimental Section 4.1 Measurement Details The synthesized samples are structurally and magnetically characterized using XRD, Raman, XPS, VSM, HRTEM and EPR . Raman spectra were obtained using a Horiba Jobin Yvon HR800 Raman spectrometer with a 488 nm laser as the excitation source, 1800 lines/mm grating with a resolution of 2 cm−1, one mW optical power...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Supporting Information Supporting Information is available from the author upon request

    work page

  6. [6]

    The author acknowledges Prof M

    Acknowledgements We thank ARCI, IIT Madras Research Park for their PPMS facility; SAIF, IIT Madras for their EPR facility. The author acknowledges Prof M. S. Ramachandra Rao for the XPS system at MSRC, IIT Madras. P. K. N. acknowledges the fun ding from Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), Government of India, under grant CRG/2023/002425 and Qu...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, X. Zhang, Nature 2017, 546, DOI 10.1038/nature22060

    doi:10.1038/nature22060 2017

  8. [8]

    A. V. Papavasileiou, M. Menelaou, K. J. Sarkar, Z. Sofer, L. Polavarapu, S. Mourdikoudis, Adv Funct Mater 2024, 34, DOI 10.1002/adfm.202309046. 14

    doi:10.1002/adfm.202309046 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Q. H. Wang, A. Bedoya -Pinto, M. Blei, A. H. Dismukes, A. Hamo, S. Jenkins, M. Koperski, Y. Liu, Q. C. Sun, E. J. Telford, H. H. Kim, M. Augustin, U. Vool, J. X. Yin, L. H. Li, A. Falin, C. R. Dean, F. Casanova, R. F. L. Evans, M. Chshiev, A. Mishchenko, C. Petrovic, R. He, L....

    2022

  2. [10]

    Laraoui, K

    A. Laraoui, K. Ambal, Appl Phys Lett 2022, 121, DOI 10.1063/5.0091931

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Y. L. Huang, W. Chen, A. T. S. Wee, SmartMat 2021, 2, DOI 10.1002/smm2.1031

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    P. Liu, Y. Zhang, K. Li, Y. Li, Y. Pu, iScience 2023, 26, DOI 10.1016/j.isci.2023.107584

    2023

  5. [13]

    C. Gong, X. Zhang, Science (1979) 2019, 363, DOI 10.1126/science.aav4450

    1979 doi

  6. [14]

    Y. Ahn, X. Guo, S. Son, Z. Sun, L. Zhao, Prog Quantum Electron 2024, 93, DOI 10.1016/j.pquantelec.2024.100498

    2024

  7. [15]

    Y. Khan, S. M. Obaidulla, M. R. Habib, A. Gayen, T. Liang, X. Wang, M. Xu, Nano Today 2020, 34, DOI 10.1016/j.nantod.2020.100902

    2020

  8. [16]

    Zhang, F

    G. Zhang, F. Guo, H. Wu, X. Wen, L. Yang, W. Jin, W. Zhang, H. Chang, Nat Commun 2022, 13, DOI 10.1038/s41467-022-32605-5

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Ribeiro, G

    M. Ribeiro, G. Gentile, A. Marty, D. Dosenovic, H. Okuno, C. Vergnaud, J. F. Jacquot, D. Jalabert, D. Longo, P. Ohresser, A. Hallal, M. C hshiev, O. Boulle, F. Bonell, M. Jamet, NPJ 2D Mater Appl 2022, 6, 1

    2022

  10. [18]

    Alahmed, B

    L. Alahmed, B. Nepal, J. Macy, W. Zheng, B. Casas, A. Sapkota, N. Jones, A. R. Mazza, M. Brahlek, W. Jin, M. Mahjouri-Samani, S. S. L. Zhang, C. Mewes, L. Balicas, T. Mewes, P. Li, 2d Mater 2021, 8, DOI 10.1088/2053-1583/ac2028

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    S. Yu, J. Tang, Y. Wang, F. Xu, X. Li, X. Wang, Sci Technol Adv Mater 2022, 23, DOI 10.1080/14686996.2022.2030652

    2022

  12. [20]

    W. L. Wang, S. Meng, E. Kaxiras, Nano Lett 2008, 8, DOI 10.1021/nl072548a

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    K. F. Mak, C. Lee, J. Hone, J. Shan, T. F. Heinz, Phys Rev Lett 2010, 105, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.136805

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    V. K. Sangwan, H. N. Arnold, D. Jariwala, T. J. Marks, L. J. Lauhon, M. C. Hersam, Nano Lett 2013, 13, DOI 10.1021/nl402150r

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Radisavljevic, M

    B. Radisavljevic, M. B. Whitwick, A. Kis, ACS Nano 2013, 7

    2013

  16. [24]

    Radisavljevic, A

    B. Radisavljevic, A. Radenovic, J. Brivio, V. Giacometti, A. Kis, Nat Nanotechnol 2011, 6, 147. 15

    2011

  17. [25]

    Splendiani, L

    A. Splendiani, L. Sun, Y. Zhang, T. Li, J. Kim, C. Y. Chim, G. Galli, F. Wang, Nano Lett 2010, 10, DOI 10.1021/nl903868w

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Duraisamy, A

    S. Duraisamy, A. Ganguly, P. K. Sharma, J. Benson, J. Davis, P. Papakonstantinou, ACS Appl Nano Mater 2021, 4, DOI 10.1021/acsanm.0c03274

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    T. F. Jaramillo, K. P. Jørgensen, J. Bonde, J. H. Nielsen, S. Horch, I. Chorkendorff , Science (1979) 2007, 317, DOI 10.1126/science.1141483

    1979 doi

  20. [28]

    X. Zhou, B. Jin, M. Yang, P. Schmuki, ECS Meeting Abstracts 2018, MA2018-01, DOI 10.1149/ma2018-01/29/1709

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    S. Fu, K. Kang, K. Shayan, A. Yoshimura, S. Dadras, X. Wang, L. Zhang, S. Chen, N. Liu, A. Jindal, X. Li, A. N. Pasupathy, A. N. Vamivakas, V. Meunier, S. Strauf, E. H. Yang, Nat Commun 2020, 11, DOI 10.1038/s41467-020-15877-7

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Ahmed, X

    S. Ahmed, X. Y. Carl Cui, X. Ding, P. P. Murmu, N. Bao, X. Geng, S. Xi, R. Liu, J. Kennedy, T. Wu, L. Wa ng, K. Suzuki, J. Ding, X. Chu, S. R. Clastinrusselraj Indirathankam, M. Peng, A. Vinu, S. P. Ringer, J. Yi, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2020, 12, DOI 10.1021/acsami.0c18150

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    kumar Anbalagan, F

    A. kumar Anbalagan, F. C. Hu, W. K. Chan, A. C. Gandhi, S. Gupta, M. Chaudhary, K. W. Chuang, A. K. Ramesh, T. Billo, A. Sabbah, C. Y. Chiang, Y. C. Tseng, Y. L. Ch ueh, S. Y. Wu, N. H. Tai, H. Y. T. Chen, C. H. Lee, ACS Nano 2023, 17, 6555

    2023

  24. [33]

    Tongay, S

    S. Tongay, S. S. Varnoosfaderani, B. R. Appleton, J. Wu, A. F. Hebard, Appl Phys Lett 2012, 101, DOI 10.1063/1.4753797

    2012 doi

  25. [34]

    Sanikop, C

    R. Sanikop, C. Sudakar, ACS Appl Nano Mater 2020, 3, 576

    2020

  26. [35]

    P. Tao, H. Guo, T. Yang, Z. Zhang, J Appl Phys 2014, 115, DOI 10.1063/1.4864015

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    Sanikop, S

    R. Sanikop, S. Gautam, K. H. Chae, C. Sudakar, J Magn Magn Mater 2021, 537, DOI 10.1016/j.jmmm.2021.168226

    2021

  28. [37]

    Q. Zhou, S. Su, P. Cheng, X. Hu, M. Zeng, X . Gao, Z. Zhang, J. M. Liu, Nanoscale 2018, 10, DOI 10.1039/c8nr03038c

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    A. R. Botello-Méndez, F. López-Urías, M. Terrones, H. Terrones, Nanotechnology 2009, 20, DOI 10.1088/0957-4484/20/32/325703

    2009 doi

  30. [39]

    G. Gao, C. Chen, X. Xie, Y. Su, S. Kang, G. Zhu, D. Gao, A. Trampert, L. Cai, Mater Res Lett 2017, 5, DOI 10.1080/21663831.2016.1256915. 16

    2017

  31. [40]

    L. Cai, J. He, Q. Liu, T. Yao, L. Chen, W. Yan, F. Hu, Y. Jiang, Y. Zhao, T. Hu, Z. Sun, S. Wei, J Am Chem Soc 2015, 137, 2622

    2015

  32. [41]

    S. Yan, W. Qiao, X. He, X. Guo, L. Xi, W. Zhong, Y. Du, Appl Phys Lett 2015, 106, DOI 10.1063/1.4905656

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    W. S. Yun, J. D. Lee, Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2015, 119, 2822

    2015

  34. [43]

    C. S. Park, Y. Kwon, Y. Kim, H. D. Cho, H. Kim, W. Yang, D. Y. Kim, Nanomaterials 2024, 14, DOI 10.3390/nano14040334

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    X. Ma, R. Li, B. Zheng, L. Huang, Y. Zhang, S. Wang, C. Wang, H. Tan, Y. Lu, B. Xiang, Nano Lett 2023, 23, DOI 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c03716

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    S. M. Huang, P. C. Chen, P. C. Wang, Nanomaterials 2021, 11, DOI 10.3390/nano11123263

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    Y. Guo, N. Liu, Y. Zhao, X. Jiang, S. Zhou, J. Zhao, Chinese Physics Letters 2020, 37, DOI 10.1088/0256-307X/37/10/107506

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    Ahmed, X

    S. Ahmed, X. Ding, N. Bao, P. Bian, R. Zheng, Y. Wang, P. P. Murmu, J. V. Kennedy, R. Liu, H. Fan, K. Suzuki, J. Ding, J. Yi, Chemistry of Materials 2017, 29, 9066

    2017

  39. [48]

    J. Xie, J. Zhang, S. Li, F. Grote, X. Zhang, H. Zhang, R. Wang, Y. Lei, B. Pan, Y. Xie, J Am Chem Soc 2013, 135, 17881

    2013

  40. [49]

    J. R. González, R. Alcántara, J. L. Tirado, A. J. Fielding, R. A. W. Dryfe, Chemistry of Materials 2017, 29, DOI 10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b01245

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    L. M. Martinez, C. Karthik, M. Kongara, S. R. Singamaneni, J Mater Res 2018, 33, 1565

    2018

  42. [51]

    Khamrui, K

    S. Khamrui, K. Bharti, D. Goldfarb, T. Das, D. Banerjee, Nanoscale 2024, DOI 10.1039/D4NR03701D

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    Venkateshwaran, M

    S. Venkateshwaran, M. J. Josline, S. M. Senthil Kumar, Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 8377

    2021

  44. [53]

    P. Lu, X. Wu, W. Guo, X. C. Zeng, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2012, 14, 13035

    2012

  45. [54]

    Zheng, B

    H. Zheng, B. Yang, D. Wang, R. Han, X. Du, Y. Yan, Appl Phys Lett 2014, 104, DOI 10.1063/1.4870532

    2014 doi

  46. [55]

    Kumar, A

    R. Kumar, A. H. Kelkar, R. Singhal, V. G. Sathe, R. J. Choudhary, N. Shukla, J Alloys Compd 2023, 951, DOI 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.169882

    2023

  47. [56]

    H. Shi, H. Pan, Y. W. Zhang, B. I. Yakobson, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 2013, 88, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.205305

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    W. Xu, S. Yan, W. Qiao, RSC Adv 2018, 8, DOI 10.1039/c7ra10304b

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.