Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 24 references

Tubulane 8-tetra-22 is predicted to exceed diamond's Young's modulus along one axis, reaching 1195 GPa.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 18:52 UTC pith:QZJXDMVF

load-bearing objection Useful DFT survey of tubulanes, but the 'stiffer than diamond' claim only works if you compare against diamond's softest direction; diamond's <111> modulus is ~1200 GPa, so the headline overreaches. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.09571 v1 pith:QZJXDMVF submitted 2025-09-11 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

On the Electronic, Mechanical and Optical Properties of Superhard Cross-Linked Carbon Nanotubes (Tubulanes)

Raphael M. Tromer , Bruno Ipaves , Marcelo L. Pereira Junior , Cristiano F. Woellner , Kun Cai , Douglas S. Galvao This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords tubulanescross-linked carbon nanotubesYoung's modulusanisotropyband gapPoisson's ratioporositydensity functional theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper uses first-principles density functional theory to predict the mechanical, electronic, and optical properties of six tubulane crystals—carbon phases built by cross-linking carbon nanotubes. The central result is that tubulanes are strongly anisotropic: the 8-tetra-22 structure has a Young's modulus of 1195 GPa along its z-axis, higher than diamond's 1046 GPa, while being less stiff and less dense in other directions. All six structures have indirect electronic band gaps between 0.46 and 2.74 eV at the generalized-gradient level, smaller than diamond's, and they remain porous. The authors argue that this combination—direction-dependent stiffness, near-zero or negative Poisson's ratios, porosity, and UV-range optical response—makes tubulanes promising for impact-resistant, lightweight, and UV-blocking applications.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that tubulanes, as a family of cross-linked carbon nanotubes, can surpass diamond in directional stiffness while remaining lighter and porous. Specifically, the structure named 8-tetra-22 has a computed Young's modulus of 1195.35 GPa along the z-direction, exceeding the computed diamond value of 1046.31 GPa, and its bulk modulus (396.28 GPa) comes close to diamond's (435.03 GPa). The paper also finds that all six tubulane structures are semiconductors with indirect band gaps, the smallest being 16-tetra-22 at 0.46 eV at the generalized-gradient level and 1.53 eV with a hybrid functional, and that their dielectric response and absorption peaks resemble diamond's,

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the set of six tubulane crystal structures: three tetragonal (8-tetra-22, 8-tetra-33, 16-tetra-22) and three hexagonal (12-hexa-33, 24-hexa-20, 36-hexa-33), each built from cross-linked carbon nanotubes with different chiralities and channel shapes. For each structure, the paper computes relaxed lattice parameters, the full elastic tensor (from which moduli and Poisson ratios are derived), electronic band structures, and the dielectric function, with a scissor correction applied to optical spectra using hybrid-functional band gaps. The cross-linked nanotube topology is what creates the anisotropy: the aligned channels make the z-direction markedly s

Load-bearing premise

The entire set of predictions depends on the assumption that the six modeled cross-linked nanotube topologies are the actual, long-lived ground-state structures of tubulanes—a stability claim supported only by a 2-picosecond molecular dynamics simulation at 300 K.

What would settle it

A phonon-dispersion calculation for 8-tetra-22 showing imaginary (negative) frequencies would prove the structure is dynamically unstable; alternatively, a longer AIMD trajectory that shows bond breaking or transformation within tens of picoseconds would falsify the stability claim. Experimentally, synthesizing 8-tetra-22 and measuring a Young's modulus along the c-axis below 1046 GPa would contradict the central numerical result.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Components made from tubulanes could be oriented so their stiff axis carries mechanical load, giving diamond-like stiffness along one direction at lower density.
  • The near-zero and negative Poisson's ratios in specific directions allow materials that barely contract laterally under compression, or even expand, which could be used in actuators and shock absorbers.
  • Tubulanes reflect up to about 70% of ultraviolet light in the 14–15 eV range, so thin films could serve as UV blockers.
  • The small-gap structure 16-tetra-22, with a hybrid-functional gap of 1.53 eV, could be a candidate for narrow-gap semiconducting applications.
  • Because tubulanes are porous while mechanically strong, they may be suited for membranes or filters that need to withstand pressure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The strong dependence of the band gap on nanotube chirality (8-tetra-22 vs 16-tetra-22 differ by about 2 eV even though they differ only in chirality) suggests a broader design rule: choosing the tube chirality tunes the electronic gap of the cross-linked solid. The paper reports this but does not map the full chirality–property landscape.
  • If the predicted anisotropy is correct, nanoindentation experiments on oriented tubulane films or 3D-printed tubulane-like samples could directly test whether the z-direction modulus exceeds diamond's; such a test is feasible with current synthesis approaches.
  • The stability evidence is limited to a 2 picosecond molecular dynamics run; computing full phonon dispersions would clarify whether these phases are dynamically stable or only kinetic artifacts of the short simulation.
  • The optical calculations use a scissor correction rather than a many-body GW treatment, so the reported absorption edge positions might shift when excitonic effects are included; this is a testable refinement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports DFT (PBE/DFT-D) calculations, with CASTEP and SIESTA, of six tubulane polymorphs (three tetragonal and three hexagonal cross-linked carbon nanotube structures). It computes relaxed geometries, elastic constants and derived moduli, band structures and PDOS, and optical functions using an HSE06-based scissor correction. The headline claims are that 8-tetra-22 is stiffer along z (1195.35 GPa) than diamond (1046.31 GPa), that the tubulanes show strong mechanical anisotropy including near-zero and auxetic Poisson ratios, that all six have indirect gaps in the 0.46–2.74 eV range, and that their optical properties suggest UV-blocking applications. Room-temperature structural stability is asserted from 2 ps AIMD runs on 2×2×2 supercells.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful systematic property map of tubulanes: the DFT protocol is standard, PBE gaps are cross-checked between CASTEP and SIESTA, diamond's static dielectric constant (5.4) and refractive index (2.33) are validated against experiment, and the scissor correction is an externally benchmarked HSE06 shift rather than a fitted parameter. However, the central 'stiffer than diamond' claim is benchmarked against diamond's <100> modulus, not its maximum directional modulus; using standard diamond elastic constants gives E[111] ≈ 1206 GPa, above the reported 1195.35 GPa. The manuscript also internally labels 16-tetra-22 as metallic while Table 3 reports a 0.46 eV gap. Both issues are load-bearing and require correction, but the underlying numerical work appears salvageable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Mechanical properties (Table 2)] The central claim that 8-tetra-22's z-direction Young's modulus (1195.35 GPa) exceeds diamond's (1046.31 GPa) uses a misleading reference. Diamond is cubic and elastically anisotropic: 1046.31 GPa is the <100> (or isotropic/averaged) value, not the maximum. With standard diamond elastic constants (C11≈1076, C12≈125, C44≈577 GPa), the Young's modulus along <111> is approximately 1206 GPa, which is higher than 1195.35 GPa. The abstract, Table 2 discussion, and conclusion therefore overstate the result. Please compare against diamond's maximum directional modulus, or explicitly state that the comparison is to the <100> direction / a polycrystalline average, and revise the 'superhard' framing accordingly.
  2. [Electronic Properties; Table 3] The text states that 'the 16-tetra-22 structure is metallic' and uses this metallicity to explain its small gap. This is internally inconsistent: Table 3 lists Egap = 0.46 eV (PBE) and 1.53 eV (HSE06) for 16-tetra-22, and the abstract says all tubulanes studied have indirect band gaps. A 0.46 eV gap is a narrow-gap semiconductor, not a metal. The accompanying strain argument ('nanotubes under strain tend to open the gap') also conflicts with 16-tetra-22 having the smallest gap while being described as the most compressed. Please correct the electronic description and remove or rewrite the metallicity-based rationale.
  3. [Structural Stability / AIMD] The claim that 'tubulanes are structurally stable at room temperature (300 K)' rests solely on 2 ps NPT AIMD runs on 2×2×2 supercells. Two picoseconds is too short to establish stability against slow reconstructions, and no phonon spectra, free-energy comparison, or trajectory analysis is provided. Please soften this to 'no instability was detected within 2 ps' and, if stability is load-bearing for the synthesis/superhard claims, augment with longer AIMD or lattice-dynamics evidence.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Structural Stability, Table 1] The text says 16-tetra-22 has a density close to diamond's (3.48 vs 3.51 g/cm³), but Table 1 lists 16-tetra-22 as 3.048 g/cm³. Please correct the value or the discussion.
  2. [Table 1] 36-hexa-33 is assigned to space group R3m(166), but #166 is R-3m, while R3m is #160. Please confirm the correct space group notation.
  3. [Conclusions] The conclusion states that some structures surpass diamond's bulk modulus, but Table 2 shows all tubulane K values (322.65–396.28 GPa) are below diamond's 435.03 GPa. Please rephrase.
  4. [Supporting Information captions] The captions for Figures 8 and 9 appear swapped: Figure 8 is labeled 'tetragonal' but lists 12-hexa-33, 24-hexa-20, and 36-hexa-33; Figure 9 is labeled 'hexagonal' but lists 8-tetra-22, 8-tetra-33, and 16-tetra-22.
  5. [Structural Stability / Reference 22] Reference 22 (wafer-scale synthesis of porphyrin polymers) is not directly relevant to tubulane synthesis. The claim that 'an approach was used to synthesize similar structures at ambient conditions' needs substantiation or a more appropriate reference from 3D carbon materials synthesis.
  6. [Optical properties] The statement that 16-tetra-22 'exhibits an optical transition in the violet range' despite a corrected gap of 1.53 eV needs clarification: is this a higher-energy transition? As written, it is confusing because the first absorption peak should start near the gap.
  7. [Title/Abstract] The term 'superhard' is used in the title and abstract, but no hardness (e.g., Vickers) is computed or cited. Young's modulus alone is not a hardness measure; please qualify the term or provide hardness estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: all reported properties are direct DFT outputs; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Young's moduli, bulk moduli, Poisson ratios, band gaps, and dielectric functions are obtained from DFT calculations (CASTEP/SIESTA) on fixed structural models; none of these quantities is fitted to the target result. The only correction is the scissor shift of Eq. (4), computed as the difference between HSE06 and PBE band gaps; this is an external-functional correction, and the tubulane optical values are not adjusted to match any experimental quantity. Diamond is used as a validation reference (refractive index 2.33 vs 2.4 experimental, Section 'Optical properties'), and the same computational pipeline is applied to all structures, so the tubulane-versus-diamond comparison is not constructed by definition. Several references are to the authors' prior work (refs. 1, 3, 7), but these are contextual (definitions, prior tubulane proposals, related pentadiamond studies) and are not load-bearing for the newly computed properties; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. Two passages deserve note but are not circular: (i) the AIMD stability conclusion is based on only 2 ps runs (Section 'Structural Stability'), which is a weak empirical check, not a circular argument; (ii) the statement that diamond is isotropic (Table 2, Section 'Mechanical properties') is physically incorrect for cubic diamond, whose Young's modulus is direction-dependent, so the claim that 8-tetra-22 'exceeds diamond' may depend on comparing to an isotropic average rather than diamond's stiffest direction. That is a correctness concern, not a circularity, because the 1195.35 GPa value is a direct DFT output rather than a derivative of the diamond reference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numbers come from DFT with standard functionals and pseudopotentials; no free parameters are fitted to the target properties. The scissor shift is a derived correction, and the k-points and cutoffs are convergence choices. The main unstated inputs are the fixed structural topologies and the short AIMD time used as a stability certificate.

free parameters (1)
  • Scissor shift for optical spectra = E_gap(HSE06) - E_gap(PBE), per structure (e.g., 1.24 eV for 8-tetra-22, from Table 3)
    Applies a rigid shift to unoccupied states so optical onsets match hybrid-functional gaps. The shift is computed from calculated gaps, not fit to experimental optical data, but it is a hand-chosen correction scheme affecting all optical results.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Kohn-Sham DFT (PBE and HSE06) accurately describes the ground-state geometry, elastic constants, and band gaps of carbon allotropes.
    All mechanical and electronic numbers are outputs of CASTEP, SIESTA, and Gaussian16 DFT calculations; the accuracy of these functionals for carbon is assumed.
  • domain assumption The six structural models (space groups and lattice parameters in Table 1) are the correct cross-linked topologies and relaxed ground states.
    No search over alternative cross-linking patterns is performed; the structures are taken from prior tubulane literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Two picoseconds of AIMD at 300 K is sufficient evidence of room-temperature structural stability.
    The stability claim rests on 2 ps NPT runs on 2x2x2 supercells, a short sampling time for thermal stability.
  • domain assumption The scissor operator, a rigid shift of unoccupied states by E_gap(HSE06)-E_gap(PBE), gives reliable optical spectra without full GW corrections.
    Used to set absorption onsets; the paper cites prior works using the same approximation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8707 in / 13687 out tokens · 140117 ms · 2026-08-04T18:52:06.613169+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Electronic, Mechanical and Optical Properties of Superhard Cross-Linked Carbon Nanotubes (Tubulanes)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZJXDMVF

@misc{pith2026250909571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Electronic, Mechanical and Optical Properties of Superhard Cross-Linked Carbon Nanotubes (Tubulanes)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZJXDMVF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09571}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We have investigated the electronic, optical, and mechanical properties of six structures belonging to the Tubulanes-cross-linked carbon nanotube family. Our results highlight the remarkable anisotropic mechanical behavior of these materials, distinguishing them from isotropic structures, such as diamond. Notably, the 8-tetra-22 structure has a higher Young's modulus ($Y_M$) along the $z$-direction compared to diamond. Unlike diamonds, the mechanical properties of Tubulanes are direction-dependent, with significant variations in Young's Modulus (2.3 times). Additionally, the Poisson's ratio is highly anisotropic, with at least one direction exhibiting an approximately zero value. The inherent anisotropy of these materials enables tunable mechanical properties that depend on the direction of applied stress. Regarding their electronic properties, all Tubulane structures studied possess indirect electronic band gaps, dominated by $2p$ orbitals. The band dispersion is relatively high, with band gaps ranging from 0.46 eV to 2.74 eV, all of which are smaller than that of diamond. Notably, the 16-tetra-22 structure exhibits the smallest bandgap (0.46 eV), making it particularly interesting for electronic applications. Additionally, these structures exhibit porosity, which provides an advantage over denser materials, such as diamond. Considering the recent advances in the synthesis of 3D carbon-based materials, the synthesis of tubulane-like structures is within our present-day technological capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09571 by Bruno Ipaves, Cristiano F. Woellner, Douglas S. Galvao, Kun Cai, Marcelo L. Pereira Junior, Raphael M. Tromer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic representation of the tetragonal family structures: 8-tetra-22, 8-tetra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic representation of the hexagonal family structures: 12-hexa-33, 24-hexa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Electronic band structure of the tetragonal optimized geometries shown in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Electronic band structure of the hexagonal optimized geometries shown in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Imaginary part of the dielectric function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Absorption coefficient as a function of the photon energy, for an externally applied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reflectivity as a function of the photon energy, for an externally applied electric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic representation (orthorhombic view) of tetragonal optimized structures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic representation (orthorhombic view) of hexagonal optimized structures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schematic representation of optimized unit cell replicated 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic representation of optimized unit cell replicated 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Schematic representation of optimized unit cell replicated 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Schematic representation of optimized unit cell replicated 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Real part of the dielectric function versus photon energy,for an externally applies electric field polarized along X, Y and z directions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Refractive index versus photon energy,for an externally applies electric field polarized along X, Y and z directions 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Tubulanes: carbon phases based on cross-linked fullerene tubules

    Baughman, R.; Galvao, D. Tubulanes: carbon phases based on cross-linked fullerene tubules. Chemical physics letters 1993, 211, 110--118

    1993

  2. [2]

    K.; Baimova, J

    Rysaeva, L. K.; Baimova, J. A.; Dmitriev, S. V.; Lisovenko, D. S.; Gorodtsov, V. A.; Rudskoy, A. I. Elastic properties of diamond-like phases based on carbon nanotubes. Diamond and Related Materials 2019, 97, 107411

    2019

  3. [3]

    M.; Woellner, C

    Sajadi, S. M.; Woellner, C. F.; Ramesh, P.; Eichmann, S. L.; Sun, Q.; Boul, P. J.; Thaemlitz, C. J.; Rahman, M. M.; Baughman, R. H.; Galv \ a o, D. S. et al. 3D printed tubulanes as lightweight hypervelocity impact resistant structures. Small 2019, 15, 1904747

    2019

  4. [4]

    Smallest carbon nanotube

    Ajayan, P.; Lijima, S. Smallest carbon nanotube. Nature 1992, 358, 23--23

    1992

  5. [5]

    W.; Ajayan, P

    Ebbesen, T. W.; Ajayan, P. M. Large-scale synthesis of carbon nanotubes. Nature 1992, 358, 220--222

    1992

  6. [6]

    Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon

    Iijima, S. Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 1991, 354, 56--58

    1991

  7. [7]

    M.; Felix, L

    Tromer, R. M.; Felix, L. C.; Woellner, C. F.; Galvao, D. S. A DFT investigation of the electronic, optical, and thermoelectric properties of pentadiamond. Chemical physics letters 2021, 763, 138210

    2021

  8. [8]

    F.; Sanyal, B.; Assali, L

    Ipaves, B.; Justo, J. F.; Sanyal, B.; Assali, L. V. Tuning the Electronic and Mechanical Properties of Two-Dimensional Diamond through N and B Doping. ACS Applied Electronic Materials 2024, 6, 386--393

    2024

  9. [9]

    H.; Zakhidov, A

    Baughman, R. H.; Zakhidov, A. A.; De Heer, W. A. Carbon nanotubes--the route toward applications. science 2002, 297, 787--792

    2002

  10. [10]

    J.; Segall, M

    Clark, S. J.; Segall, M. D.; Pickard, C. J.; Hasnip, P. J.; Probert, M. I. J.; Refson, K.; Payne, M. C. First principles methods using CASTEP. Zeitschrift fuer Kristallographie 01 May. 2005, 220, 567--570

    2005

  11. [11]

    M.; Artacho, E.; Gale, J

    Soler, J. M.; Artacho, E.; Gale, J. D.; Garc \' a, A.; Junquera, J.; Ordej \'o n, P.; S \'a nchez-Portal, D. The SIESTA method for ab initio order-N materials simulation. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2002, 14, 2745

    2002

  12. [12]

    P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M

    Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865

    1996

  13. [13]

    Accurate Molecular Van Der Waals Interactions from Ground-State Electron Density and Free-Atom Reference Data

    Tkatchenko, A.; Scheffler, M. Accurate Molecular Van Der Waals Interactions from Ground-State Electron Density and Free-Atom Reference Data. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 102, 073005

    2009

  14. [14]

    S.; Qteish, A.; Payne, M

    Lin, J. S.; Qteish, A.; Payne, M. C.; Heine, V. Optimized and transferable nonlocal separable ab initio pseudopotentials. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 47, 4174--4180

    1993

  15. [15]

    J.; Pack, J

    Monkhorst, H. J.; Pack, J. D. Special points for Brillouin-zone integrations. Phys. Rev. B 1976, 13, 5188

    1976

  16. [16]

    G.; Cote, M.; Louie, S

    Pfrommer, B. G.; Cote, M.; Louie, S. G.; Cohen, M. L. Relaxation of crystals with the quasi-Newton method. Journal of Computational Physics 1997, 131, 233--240

    1997

  17. [17]

    Fadaie, M.; Shahtahmassebi, N.; Roknabad, M. R. Effect of external electric field on the electronic structure and optical properties of stanene. Optical and Quantum Electronics 2016, 48, 440

    2016

  18. [18]

    A.; Ashcroft, N

    Johnson, K. A.; Ashcroft, N. W. Corrections to density-functional theory band gaps. Phys. Rev. B 1998, 58, 15548--15556

    1998

  19. [19]

    A.; Ravindran, P

    Kishore, M. A.; Ravindran, P. Enhanced Photocatalytic Water Splitting in a C2N Monolayer by C-Site Isoelectronic Substitution. ChemPhysChem 2017, 18, 1526--1532

    2017

  20. [20]

    Study of electronic and optical properties of CuInSe2 nanowires

    Nayebi, P.; Emami-Razavi, M.; Zaminpayma, E. Study of electronic and optical properties of CuInSe2 nanowires. J. Phys. Chem. C 2016, 120, 4589--4595

    2016

  21. [21]

    P.; V \"a nsk \"a , O.; Koval, P.; Koch, S

    Ljungberg, M. P.; V \"a nsk \"a , O.; Koval, P.; Koch, S. W.; Kira, M.; S \'a nchez-Portal, D. Charge-transfer states and optical transitions at the pentacene-TiO2 interface. New J. Phys. 2017, 19, 033019

    2017

  22. [22]

    Zhong, Y.; Cheng, B.; Park, C.; Ray, A.; Brown, S.; Mujid, F.; Lee, J.-U.; Zhou, H.; Suh, J.; Lee, K.-H. et al. Wafer-scale synthesis of monolayer two-dimensional porphyrin polymers for hybrid superlattices. Science 2019, 366, 1379--1384

    2019

  23. [23]

    S.; Gavrilkin, S

    Batsanov, S. S.; Gavrilkin, S. M.; Batsanov, A. S.; Poyarkov, K. B.; Kulakova, I. I.; Johnson, D. W.; Mendis, B. G. Giant dielectric permittivity of detonation-produced nanodiamond is caused by water . J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 11166--11172

    2012

  24. [24]

    doi.org/10.1039/C0EE00640H

    Walker, W. C.; Osantowski, J. Ultraviolet Optical Properties of Diamond. Phys. Rev. 1964, 134, A153--A157 mcitethebibliography achemso-demo.bib0000664000000000000000000067052015060555662012621 0ustar rootroot@article Zhong1379, author = Zhong, Yu and Cheng, Baorui and Park, Chibeom and Ray, Ariana and Brown, Sarah and Mujid, Fauzia and Lee, Jae-Ung and Zh...

    arXiv 1964