Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Defect Engineered Layer Dependent Nonlinear Optical Response in Two Dimensional Muscovite for Efficient Optical Limiting

T0 review · 5 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 Monolayer muscovite blocks 450 nm laser light with a 1.46 mJ/cm2 threshold, below graphene and MoS2.

desk verdict Monolayer muscovite shows a large intensity-dependent nonlinear absorption, but the paper's 'TPA coefficient' is an effective parameter, not a verified two-photon absorption coefficient. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14786 v2 pith:VBTTXPRX submitted 2025-07-20 physics.optics cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Dipanwita Mitra , Guilherme S. L. Fabris , Raphael Benjamim , Mateus M. Ferrer , Marcelo Lopes Pereira Junior , Riya Sadhukhan , Dipak Kumar Goswami , Gelu Costin
show 3 more authors
Douglas S. Galvão Chandra Sekhar Tiwary Prasanta Kumar Dattaa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 42.65.-k78.67.-n
keywords 2Dmuscovitetwo-photonabsorptionopticallimitingliquid-phaseexfoliationdefectengineeringmid-gapstatesZ-scansilicates
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

Using muscovite—a common sheet silicate (mica) exfoliated into flakes of roughly 12–13, 5–6, and 1–2 layers—the paper argues that nonlinear optical absorption grows sharply as the material thins. The two-photon absorption (TPA) coefficient is reported to rise from $(3.91 \pm 0.06)\times 10^{3}$ cm/GW in the thickest flakes to $(6.94 \pm 0.17)\times 10^{5}$ cm/GW in the monolayer at 450 nm and 68 GW/cm$^2$, and the monolayer's optical limiting threshold is reported as $1.46$ mJ/cm$^2$, lower than the cited values for graphene and common transition-metal dichalcogenides. The authors attribute this enhancement to quantum confinement together with defects created during liquid-phase exfoliation—potassium removal and oxygen vacancies—which introduce mid-gap electronic states. If the claim holds, an abundant natural mineral becomes a candidate for laser protection and photonic devices that need to block intense light while passing weak signals.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the open-aperture Z-scan, where the normalized transmittance dip is fitted to $T(z) \approx 1 - \beta I_0 L_{\mathrm{eff}} / [2^{3/2}(1 + z^2/z_R^2)]$, turning a measured transmission curve into a two-photon absorption coefficient $\beta$ and, through standard formulas, into Im $\chi^{(3)}$ and a figure of merit. The explanatory side uses three density-functional-theory monolayer models: $\alpha$-(001) with the potassium layer intact, $\beta$-(001) with surface potassium removed, and $\gamma$-(001) with both potassium removal and an oxygen vacancy. Comparing their band gaps (3.96, 2.97, and 2.87 eV) and densities of states is how the authors connect the measured enhancement to mid-gap defect states, making the defect models the load-bearing mechanism behind the claimed TPA increase.

What would settle it

Run the open-aperture Z-scan on the same monolayer films at two pulse durations (for example 100 fs and 1 ps) and monitor sidelight for scattering: if the fitted $\beta$ changes markedly with pulse duration or a scattered signal appears, the mechanism is not purely instantaneous two-photon absorption. A second check is to measure $\beta$ versus input intensity on a single film; true TPA should keep $\beta$ constant, while a controlled scan can confirm whether the reported rise with intensity is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two-dimensional muscovite shows a layer-dependent two-photon absorption at 450 nm under femtosecond excitation, and the monolayer limit reaches a TPA coefficient of $(6.94\pm0.17)\times 10^5$ cm/GW with an optical limiting threshold of $1.46$ mJ/cm$^2$. The authors assert these values outperform graphene, MoS$_2$, and WS$_2$ by one to two orders of magnitude in TPA coefficient and compare favorably with monolayer biotite and PdSe$_2$. They trace the mechanism to defect-engineered electronic structure: liquid-phase exfoliation leaches potassium and creates oxygen vacancies, and density functional theory shows these defects introduce mid-gap states that lower the effective transition energy from 3.96 eV in the pristine monolayer to 2.87 eV in the defected one. The claim is that defect engineering turns an ordinary silicate into a high-efficiency, low-fluence optical limiter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured transmission dip is instantaneous two-photon absorption captured by a single fitting formula, with no separate accounting for excited-state absorption, nonlinear scattering, or thermal effects, and that the effective film thickness over the laser spot is well represented by the average flake thickness from AFM.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monolayer muscovite is claimed to act as an optical limiter at 450 nm with a threshold near $1.46$ mJ/cm$^2$, low enough to protect eyes and sensors from intense femtosecond pulses.
  • The reported $\beta$ values correspond to Im $\chi^{(3)}$ around $2.59\times 10^{-7}$ esu and a figure of merit of $3.12\times 10^{-6}$ esu cm, placing the material among the strongest 2D nonlinear absorbers.
  • Exfoliation time becomes a tuning knob: extending sonication from 2 to 6 hours raises $\beta$ by about two orders of magnitude while the linear bandgap shifts from 4.16 eV to 4.54 eV.
  • The same defect-engineering argument should apply to other layered silicates, so the result points to a family of minerals rather than a single compound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that the defect-induced mid-gap states should make the TPA spectrum wavelength-dependent; measuring the Z-scan across the 3.5–5.0 eV range would separate the defect contribution from the band-edge contribution.
  • The reported intensity dependence of $\beta$—it grows from $2.68\times 10^5$ cm/GW at 10 GW/cm$^2$ to $6.94\times 10^5$ cm/GW at 68 GW/cm$^2$—suggests that a process beyond single TPA, such as excited-state absorption or defect-state saturation, may be present; a dedicated intensity- and pulse-width-dependence study would clarify this.
  • Because the comparison values for graphene and TMDs were collected at other wavelengths (532–1100 nm), a same-wavelength comparison at 450 nm would sharpen or qualify the claimed advantage.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the liquid-phase exfoliation of muscovite into few-layer and monolayer nanosheets and characterizes their nonlinear absorption by open-aperture Z-scan at 450 nm. The central claims are a very large two-photon absorption (TPA) coefficient for monolayer muscovite, (6.94±0.17)×10^5 cm/GW at 68 GW/cm², and a low optical limiting threshold of 1.46 mJ/cm² at 10 GW/cm², both interpreted as arising from quantum confinement and defect-induced mid-gap states supported by DFT calculations of pristine, potassium-depleted, and oxygen-vacancy configurations.

Significance. If substantiated, the results would establish 2D silicates as a competitive class of nonlinear optical materials and extend the authors' earlier biotite work to another naturally abundant phyllosilicate. The manuscript has clear strengths: the Z-scan fits are internally consistent, the substrate's nonlinear contribution is explicitly checked (Fig. S8), error bars are provided for the fitted β values, and the DFT structural and vibrational validation against experimental lattice parameters and Raman modes is careful. The main quantitative claim, however, is not yet established because the fitted β depends strongly on peak intensity in a way that is inconsistent with the pure-TPA model used to define it; the effective thickness used in the extraction is also not verified for the Z-scan area. The paper is significant if the authors can reframe and re-validate the measured parameter as a properly characterized effective nonlinear absorption coefficient.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1 and Eq. (1)] The fitted β values in Table 1 vary systematically with peak intensity for every sample; for example, the 6h (1-2L) sample shows β = (2.68±0.07)×10^5 cm/GW at 10 GW/cm², (3.16±0.07)×10^5 at 25 GW/cm², and (6.94±0.17)×10^5 at 68 GW/cm². In the pure-TPA model of Eq. (1), β is an intensity-independent material parameter. This systematic increase indicates that the model is misspecified and that the reported values are effective coefficients that absorb higher-order absorption, excited-state/free-carrier processes, or cumulative thermal effects. The abstract's phrase 'sensitive to excitation intensity' further confirms that the parameter is not a TPA coefficient in the standard sense. The authors should either fit a more complete intensity-dependent model (e.g., α = α0 + βI + γI²) or explicitly re-label the reported quantities as intensity-dependent effective nonlinear absorption coefficients and compare with literature values only at matched intensities.
  2. [Section 2, Figure 1 and Z-scan analysis] The β values extracted from Eq. (1) are inversely proportional to Leff, but the effective length is taken as the average AFM flake thickness (0.72 nm for the monolayer sample). The Z-scan measurements were performed on drop-cast films, and the actual thickness and coverage of the film in the beam path are not characterized. Nonuniform film morphology, overlapping flakes, and voids would make the effective thickness substantially different from the single-flake thickness, directly biasing β. The authors should determine the effective path length from the linear transmission of the Z-scan film (using the measured linear absorption coefficient and the film transmittance) or from profilometry/ellipsometry over the Z-scan region, and propagate the resulting uncertainty into the reported β values.
  3. [Section 2, Figure 4(d-f) and Table 1] Optical limiting thresholds are reported without any uncertainty, and the threshold definition is not clearly stated. The text says the transmittance data are 'fitted to a polynomial function of position-dependent fluence' but does not specify what criterion defines the limiting threshold (e.g., a 50% transmittance drop) or how many independent measurements were averaged. The comparison with graphene (10 mJ/cm²) and other materials in Figure 6c requires at least error bars and a precisely defined threshold for the comparison to be meaningful. Provide repeated measurements and standard deviations, and state the threshold criterion explicitly.
  4. [Section 2, Figures 5-6 and Table S2] The DFT calculations in Figure 5 demonstrate that potassium removal and oxygen vacancies create mid-gap states and reduce the band gap, but they do not compute two-photon transition matrix elements, TPA cross-sections, or any nonlinear response. Consequently, the statement that 'DFT calculations confirm that TPA is significantly enhanced...' (near Figure 6a) is an overstatement. The defect mechanism is plausible but unverified. If the 'defect-engineered' narrative is a central claim, the authors should either provide a direct calculation of the two-photon absorption spectrum (e.g., via a sum-over-states approach or real-time TDDFT) or soften the conclusion to a hypothesis consistent with the observed mid-gap states.
  5. [Figure 6 and Table S2] The comparison of β with other 2D materials mixes measurements at different wavelengths (1100 nm for bilayer graphene, 1030 nm for MoS₂, 800 nm for WS₂, 800 nm for PdSe₂, 415 nm for biotite) and different pulse durations. TPA is strongly dispersive and can depend on pulse duration, so the claim that monolayer muscovite 'outperforms' graphene and TMDs by one to two orders of magnitude is not yet substantiated. The authors should either compare at a common photon-energy-to-bandgap ratio or clearly caveat the comparison; otherwise the headline comparison is misleading.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table 1] The text repeatedly calls the 6h sample 'monolayer' (e.g., abstract, Section 2, conclusions), while Table 1 lists it as '1-2L' and the AFM histogram in Figure 1 shows a distribution with some thickness values above 0.72 nm. Use a consistent layer-count nomenclature throughout.
  2. [Equation (2)] The units in Eq. (2) are not clearly specified: the text says 'c, λ, and β are measured in units of cm s⁻¹, cm, and cm/W, respectively,' but the numerical factor (10⁻⁷)/(96π²) is dimension-dependent. Please clarify the unit system used and verify the expression for χ^(3) in esu.
  3. [Experimental Section, Z-scan setup] The experimental section mentions a 20 cm focal length lens and states that the beam waist and Rayleigh range were determined, but these values are not given. Provide the measured beam waist, Rayleigh range, and pulse duration at the sample so that the intensity calibration can be verified.
  4. [References] Several references are incomplete: Ref. 41 lacks publication details, and some entries in the Supporting Information are cited but not included in the main text (e.g., Figure S8). Please complete the reference list and provide the full Supporting Information for review.
  5. [Figure 3(b)] The figure is described as a Tauc plot for direct electronic transitions, but the axis labels are not visible in the manuscript text. Ensure the plot clearly displays (αhν)² versus hν so that the fitted band gaps can be evaluated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Z-scan TPA coefficients are fitted from an independent standard model and the DFT defect analysis is a post hoc interpretation, not an input.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims (the TPA coefficient, Im chi(3), FOM, and optical limiting thresholds) are all extracted from open-aperture Z-scan and optical limiting measurements using the standard Sheik-Bahae fitting model of Eq. (1) and the fluence expression of Eq. (4). These fitted values are not derived from the DFT calculations, which instead provide band structures, DOS, absorption spectra, and qualitative mid-gap-state information. The DFT section does not compute a two-photon transition matrix element or a TPA cross-section, so the defect-state mechanism is an independent post hoc interpretation rather than a circularly defined input. The only internal reference of note is the authors' prior biotite work, Ref. [12], used as a comparison material and as an additional citation for the same standard Z-scan fitting equation that is also attributed to Sheik-Bahae et al. Ref. [47]. This self-citation is not load-bearing: the fitting formula is standard and externally established, and the biotite comparison is a benchmark, not a premise. The observed intensity dependence of the fitted beta is a potential model-misspecification or effective-parameter concern, but it is a question of correctness and interpretation, not circularity. The derivation chain therefore does not reduce to its own inputs.

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

The central measured quantities rest on the standard Z-scan TPA model and on identifying exfoliation-induced defects from XPS and HRTEM. The DFT model postulates specific defect configurations rather than deriving them directly from experiment, and beta is a fitted quantity used to compute Im chi(3) and FOM.

free parameters (2)
  • TPA coefficient beta = 3.91e3 to 6.94e5 cm/GW depending on layer count and intensity
    Extracted by fitting Eq. (1) to open-aperture Z-scan transmittance curves. All subsequent claims about enhancement, Im chi(3), and FOM use these fitted values.
  • Optical limiting threshold = 1.46 to 34 mJ/cm2
    Extracted by fitting normalized transmittance versus fluence to a polynomial function. Reported without uncertainties and depends on the chosen peak intensity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The normalized transmittance dip in the OA Z-scan is described by the instantaneous TPA formula T(z) = 1 - beta I0 Leff / (2^(3/2) (1 + z^2/z_R^2)).
    Invoked in Eq. (1). If excited-state absorption, nonlinear scattering, or thermal effects contribute, the fitted beta is an effective coefficient rather than a true TPA coefficient.
  • domain assumption Observed nonlinear absorption is TPA because the photon energy lies between Eg/2 and Eg.
    Used in the Results section to assign the RSA signature to TPA without a direct two-photon transition calculation or a pulse-duration dependence check.
  • ad hoc to paper The three DFT configurations alpha-, beta-, and gamma-(001) capture the relevant defect physics of exfoliated muscovite.
    The gamma configuration with potassium removal and one oxygen vacancy is chosen to match the hypothesized exfoliation damage, but no direct atomistic evidence quantifies the actual defect concentrations.
  • ad hoc to paper XPS O 1s peak at 531.7 eV and HRTEM inverse FFT features indicate oxygen vacancies.
    Used to support the defect narrative. The assignment is plausible but not uniquely determined by the presented data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defect Engineered Layer Dependent Nonlinear Optical Response in Two Dimensional Muscovite for Efficient Optical Limiting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBTTXPRX

@misc{pith2026250714786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defect Engineered Layer Dependent Nonlinear Optical Response in Two Dimensional Muscovite for Efficient Optical Limiting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBTTXPRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14786}
}
read the original abstract

Light-matter interactions in two-dimensional (2D) materials have gained significant interest due to their distinctive optical and electronic properties. Recently, silicates have emerged as a promising new class of 2D materials, but their nonlinear optical properties remain largely unexplored. In this study, we demonstrate layer-dependent nonlinear absorption and optical limiting capabilities of 2D muscovite using femtosecond laser excitation at 450 nm. The two-photon absorption (TPA) coefficient is highly sensitive to both the number of layers and excitation intensity, increasing markedly from (3.91+/-0.06)x10^3 cm GW^-1 in multilayer structures to (6.94+/-0.17)x10^5 cm GW^-1 in the monolayer limit at a peak intensity of 68 GW cm^-2, highlighting a strong layer-dependent enhancement in nonlinear absorption. Additionally, monolayer muscovite exhibits an optical limiting threshold of 1.46 mJ cm^-2, outperforming graphene and other 2D dichalcogenides. This enhanced TPA arises from quantum confinement and intrinsic lattice defects that facilitate nonlinear optical transitions. Density functional theory reveals that liquid-phase exfoliation disrupts potassium interlayers and induces oxygen vacancies, generating mid-gap electronic states that significantly enhance TPA. These insights open new avenues for designing low-fluence, high-efficiency optical limiters using 2D silicates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14786 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Thickness distribution characterization. Thickness distribution histograms of exfoliated muscovite nanoflakes are derived from AFM measurements, accompanied by representative images and height profiles at different exfoliation times: (a-c) for 2 h, (d-f) for 4 h, and (g-i) for 6h. M refers to the mean thickness value. The degree of exfoliation is further analyzed using atomic force microscopy (AFM). Height profiles … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) XRD spectra of bulk muscovite; (b) SEM image of 2D muscovite; (c) Relative frequency vs. Zeta Potential plot for 2h, 4h, a nd 6h exfoliated muscovite (d) Bar plot of mean Zeta potential for 2, 4, and 6 h exfoliated muscovite; (e) The XPS surface scan of the 2D sample; (f-i) XPS spectra of individual peaks for C 1s, Si 2p, O 1s, Al 2p respectively; (j) Bright-field TEM image of 2D muscovite (k) The HRTEM image re… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics, Academic Press, New York, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Y. R. Shen, The Principles of Nonlinear Optics, Wiley Press, NewYork , 1984

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    G. P. Agrawal, Applications of Nonlinear Fiber Optics, Academic Press, London, UK , 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Garmire, Opt Express 2013, 21, 30532

    E. Garmire, Opt Express 2013, 21, 30532

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Keller, Nature 2003, 424, 831

    U. Keller, Nature 2003, 424, 831

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Li, Nonlinear Optics: Principles and Applications, Springer, Singapore, 2017

    C. Li, Nonlinear Optics: Principles and Applications, Springer, Singapore, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    E. L. Wooten, K. M. Kissa, A. Yi-Yan, E. J. Murphy, D. A. Lafaw, P. F. Hallemeier, D. Maack, D. V. Attanasio, D. J. Fritz, G. J. McBrien, D. E. Bossi, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 2000, 6, 69

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Nabet, Photodetectors: Materials, Devices and Applications, Elsevier, London, UK , 2015

    B. Nabet, Photodetectors: Materials, Devices and Applications, Elsevier, London, UK , 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    G. M. M. Z. P. G. M. Duelli, Nonlinear Optical Effects and Materials, Springer, Berlin, Germany , 2000

    2000

  2. [10]

    Jiang, K

    T. Jiang, K. Yin, C. Wang, J. You, H. Ouyang, R. Miao, C. Zhang, K. Wei, H. Li, H. Chen, R. Zhang, X. Zheng, Z. Xu, X. Cheng, H. Zhang, Photonics Res 2020, 8, 78

    2020

  3. [11]

    A. M. Weiner, Opt Commun 2011, 284, 3669

    2011

  4. [12]

    Mitra, Md

    D. Mitra, Md. N. Hasan, C. C. Gowda, G. Costin, C. S. Tiwary, D. Karmakar, P. K. Datta, ACS Appl Nano Mater 2025, 8, 8187

    2025

  5. [13]

    M. Feng, H. Zhan, Y. Chen, Appl Phys Lett 2010, 96, DOI: 10.1063/1.3279148

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Bin Rahaman, S

    A. Bin Rahaman, S. Bhattacharya, A. Sarkar, T. Singha, D. Banerjee, P. K. Datta, J Appl Phys 2019, 126, DOI: 10.1063/1.5111094

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Bhattacharya, A

    S. Bhattacharya, A. Ghorai, S. Raval, M. Karmakar, A. Midya, S. K. Ray, P. K. Datta, Carbon N Y 2018, 134, 80

    2018

  8. [16]

    G. K. Lim, Z. L. Chen, J. Clark, R. G. S. Goh, W. H. Ng, H. W. Tan, R. H. Friend, P. K. H. Ho, L. L. Chua, Nat Photonics 2011, 5, 554

    2011

  9. [17]

    K. Wang, B. M. Szydłowska, G. Wang, X. Zhang, J. J. Wang, J. J. Magan, L. Zhang, J. N. Coleman, J. Wang, W. J. Blau, ACS Nano 2016, 10, 6923. 27

    2016

  10. [18]

    L. Lu, X. Tang, R. Cao, L. Wu, Z. Li, G. Jing, B. Dong, S. Lu, Y. Li, Y. Xiang, J. Li, D. Fan, H. Zhang, Adv Opt Mater 2017, 5, DOI: 10.1002/adom.201700301

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Kumbhakar, A

    P. Kumbhakar, A. K. Kole, C. S. Tiwary, S. Biswas, S. Vinod, J. Taha‐Tijerina, U. Chatterjee, P. M. Ajayan, Adv Opt Mater 2015, 3, 828

    2015

  12. [20]

    Walters, B

    G. Walters, B. R. Sutherland, S. Hoogland, D. Shi, R. Comin, D. P. Sellan, O. M. Bakr, Edward. H. Sargent, ACS Nano 2015, 9, 9340

    2015

  13. [21]

    Y. Li, N. Dong, S. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y. Feng, K. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Wang, Laser Photon Rev 2015, 9, 427

    2015

  14. [22]

    C. Lu, M. Luo, Y. Ge, Y. Huang, Q. Zhao, Y. Zhou, X. Xu, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2022, 14, 2390

    2022

  15. [23]

    Anand, A

    B. Anand, A. Kaniyoor, D. Swain, T. T. Baby, S. Venugopal Rao, S. S. Sankara Sai, S. Ramaprabhu, R. Philip, J. Mater. Chem. C 2014, 2, 10116

    2014

  16. [24]

    H. Ren, F. K. Shehzad, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang, A. Iqbal, Y. Long, Dalton Transactions 2018, 47, 6184

    2018

  17. [25]

    Z. Liu, B. Zhang, Y. Chen, Chemistry (Switzerland) 2019, 1, 17

    2019

  18. [26]

    Zhang, N

    S. Zhang, N. Dong, N. McEvoy, M. OBrien, S. Winters, N. C. Berner, C. Yim, Y. Li, X. Zhang, Z. Chen, L. Zhang, G. S. Duesberg, J. Wang, ACS Nano 2015, 9, 7142

    2015

  19. [27]

    M. Shi, S. Huang, N. Dong, Z. Liu, F. Gan, J. Wang, Y. Chen, Chemical Communications 2018, 54, 366

    2018

  20. [28]

    P. L. Mahapatra, R. Tromer, P. Pandey, G. Costin, B. Lahiri, K. Chattopadhyay, P. M. Ajayan, A. K. Roy, D. S. Galvao, P. Kumbhakar, C. S. Tiwary, Small 2022, 18, DOI: 10.1002/smll.202201667

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Maruvada, K

    A. Maruvada, K. Shubhakar, N. Raghavan, K. L. Pey, S. J. O’Shea, Sci Rep 2022, 12, 14076

    2022

  22. [30]

    P. A. Franken, A. E. Hill, C. W. Peters, G. Weinreich, Phys Rev Lett 1961, 7, 118

    1961

  23. [31]

    Zhang, R

    J. Zhang, R. Wei, D. Yang, Y. Wang, B. Zhang, Inorg Chem Front 2023, 10, 4711

    2023

  24. [32]

    W. D. Nesse, Introduction to Mineralogy, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    E. W. Radoslovich, Acta Crystallogr 1960, 13, 919

    1960

  26. [34]

    S. L. Teich-McGoldrick, J. A. Greathouse, R. T. Cygan, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2012, 116, 15099

    2012

  27. [36]

    G. Ou, Y. Xu, B. Wen, R. Lin, B. Ge, Y. Tang, Y. Liang, C. Yang, K. Huang, D. Zu, R. Yu, W. Chen, J. Li, H. Wu, L.-M. Liu, Y. Li, Nat Commun 2018, 9, 1302

    2018

  28. [37]

    G. H. FAYE, Can J Earth Sci 1968

    1968

  29. [38]

    Zhang, N

    F. Zhang, N. Xu, J. Zhao, Y. Wang, X. Jiang, Y. Zhang, W. Huang, L. Hu, Y. Tang, S. Xu, H. Zhang, Nanophotonics 2020, 9, 1963

    2020

  30. [39]

    Shafei, P

    L. Shafei, P. Adhikari, W.-Y. Ching, Crystals (Basel) 2021, 11, 618

    2021

  31. [40]

    M. Jain, J. R. Chelikowsky, S. G. Louie, Phys Rev Lett 2011, 107, 216806

    2011

  32. [41]

    Tlili, D

    A. Tlili, D. C. Smith, J.-M. Beny, H. Boyer, A Raman Microprobe Study of Natural Micas, n.d

  33. [42]

    A. Wang, J. Freeman, K. E. Kuebler, Raman Spectroscopic Characterization of Phyllosilicates, n.d

  34. [43]

    Childres, L

    I. Childres, L. A. Jauregui, W. Park, H. Cao, Y. P. Chen, RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY OF GRAPHENE AND RELATED MATERIALS, n.d

  35. [44]

    C. C. Yang, S. Li, J Phys Chem B 2008, 112, 14193

    2008

  36. [45]

    A. K. Arora, M. Rajalakshmi, T. R. Ravindran, V. Sivasubramanian, Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 2007, 38, 604

    2007

  37. [46]

    Shi, M.-L

    W. Shi, M.-L. Lin, Q.-H. Tan, X.-F. Qiao, J. Zhang, P.-H. Tan, 2d Mater 2016, 3, 025016

    2016

  38. [47]

    Sheik-Bahae, A

    M. Sheik-Bahae, A. A. Said, T.-H. Wei, D. J. Hagan, E. W. Van Stryland, Sensitive Measurement of Optical Nonlinearities Using a Single Beam, 1990

    1990

  39. [48]

    D. S. Kliger, Phys Teach 1985, 23, 75. 28

    1985

  40. [49]

    One-Photon and Two-Photon Excitation Spectroscopy,

    R. R. Birge, “One-Photon and Two-Photon Excitation Spectroscopy,” in Ultrasensitive Laser Spectroscopy, D. S. Kliger, 1983

    1983

  41. [50]

    W. M. McClain, Acc. Chem. Res. 7 1974, 129

    1974

  42. [51]

    P. R. Monson, W. M. McClain, J Chem Phys 1970, 53, 29

    1970

  43. [52]

    H. Yang, X. Feng, Q. Wang, H. Huang, W. Chen, A. T. S. Wee, W. Ji, Nano Lett 2011, 11, 2622

    2011

  44. [53]

    J. Yu, X. Kuang, J. Li, J. Zhong, C. Zeng, L. Cao, Z. Liu, Z. Zeng, Z. Luo, T. He, A. Pan, Y. Liu, Nat Commun 2021, 12, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21267-4

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    S. J. Varma, J. Kumar, Y. Liu, K. Layne, J. Wu, C. Liang, Y. Nakanishi, A. Aliyan, W. Yang, P. M. Ajayan, J. Thomas, Adv Opt Mater 2017, 5, DOI: 10.1002/adom.201700713

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    A. Erba, J. K. Desmarais, S. Casassa, B. Civalleri, L. Donà, I. J. Bush, B. Searle, L. Maschio, L. Edith-Daga, A. Cossard, C. Ribaldone, E. Ascrizzi, N. L. Marana, J.-P. Flament, B. Kirtman, J Chem Theory Comput 2023, 19, 6891

    2023

  47. [56]

    Pascale, C

    F. Pascale, C. M. Zicovich-Wilson, R. Orlando, C. Roetti, P. Ugliengo, R. Dovesi, J Phys Chem B 2005, 109, 6146

    2005

  48. [57]

    Bredow, K

    T. Bredow, K. Jug, R. A. Evarestov, physica status solidi (b) 2006, 243, DOI: 10.1002/pssb.200541403

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    Dovesi, C

    R. Dovesi, C. Roetti, C. Freyria-Fava, M. Prencipe, V. R. Saunders, Chem Phys 1991, 156, 11

    1991

  50. [59]

    Montanari, B

    B. Montanari, B. Civalleri, C. M. Zicovich‐Wilson, R. Dovesi, Int J Quantum Chem 2006, 106, 1703

    2006

  51. [60]

    Dovesi, C

    R. Dovesi, C. Ermondi, E. Ferrero, C. Pisani, C. Roetti, Phys Rev B 1984, 29, 3591

    1984

  52. [61]

    Ferrero, M

    M. Ferrero, M. Rérat, R. Orlando, R. Dovesi, J Chem Phys 2008, 128, DOI: 10.1063/1.2817596

    2008 doi

  53. [62]

    J. M. Soler, E. Artacho, J. D. Gale, A. García, J. Junquera, P. Ordejón, D. Sánchez-Portal, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2002, 14, 2745

    2002

  54. [63]

    García, N

    A. García, N. Papior, A. Akhtar, E. Artacho, V. Blum, E. Bosoni, P. Brandimarte, M. Brandbyge, J. I. Cerdá, F. Corsetti, R. Cuadrado, V. Dikan, J. Ferrer, J. Gale, P. García- Fernández, V. M. García-Suárez, S. García, G. Huhs, S. Illera, R. Korytár, P. Koval, I. Lebedeva, L. L...

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    W. Kohn, L. J. Sham, Physical Review 1965, 140, A1133

    1965

  56. [65]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Phys Rev Lett 1996, 77, 3865

    1996

  57. [66]

    H. J. Monkhorst, J. D. Pack, Phys Rev B 1976, 13, 5188. Supporting Information Supporting Information is available from the author. 29 30

    1976

Pith tools

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