Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Hydration-Controlled Layer Stacking in (NH$_3$)$_2$Cu$_5$(SeO$_3$)$_2$(OH)$_6$(H$_2$O)$_{2+x}$ ($x$ = 0, 1, and 3)

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read The same copper-selenite layer stacks differently and spreads farther apart solely because of how much water sits between the sheets.

desk verdict Solid new hydrate series with a real stacking story; the x=1 structure is excellent, the ED hydrates are weaker but not fatal to the main claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28427 v1 pith:P34MME4M submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Priya R. Baral , Christian Jandl , Pauline Pradal , Johann Roos , Wenhua Bi , Arnaud Magrez This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords layeredcopperseleniteshydration-controlledstackingkagomé-likeCu2+networkinterlayerwater3DelectrondiffractionCu2OSeO3precursorsamminehydroxides
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 reports a new family of layered copper selenites that all share one common sheet built from copper–hydroxide squares and square pyramids, arranged in a distorted kagomé-like network of Cu2+ ions. Across three hydration levels (two, three, or five water molecules per formula unit), that sheet itself barely changes, yet the spacing between sheets grows from about 2.6 Å to nearly 4 Å and the way neighboring sheets line up flips. Water between the layers therefore acts as a structural switch for stacking sequence and interlayer distance. The authors also show these hydrated phases form quickly under reflux and then convert into Cu2OSeO3, so they are both a model of hydration-controlled architecture and practical precursors. A sympathetic reader cares because reversible water content is a simple handle for sensing, transport, actuation, and for testing how interlayer water reshapes low-dimensional magnetism.

What carries the argument

The common L-layer — a fixed Cu2+ sheet of corner-sharing Cu(OH)4 squares plus edge-sharing square pyramids — is the invariant object; intercalated water molecules between successive L-layers are the control variable that sets both interlayer distance and stacking registry through hydrogen bonding.

What would settle it

A higher-quality single-crystal X-ray or neutron structure of the x = 0 or x = 3 phase that shows clear reconstruction of Cu–O connectivity or Cu–Cu distances inside the sheet would overturn the claim that only hydration, not intralayer change, drives the stacking difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

All three compounds (NH3)2Cu5(SeO3)2(OH)6·(H2O)2+x with x = 0, 1, and 3 share an identical L-layer of Cu(OH)4 squares and Cu-centered square pyramids that form a distorted kagomé-like Cu2+ network; only the amount of intercalated water changes the interlayer separation (2.63 → 2.92 → 3.93 Å) and the relative stacking of adjacent layers, while the intralayer atomic arrangement is preserved.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the copper sheet is truly identical in all three phases rests on electron-diffraction structures for the driest and wettest members that are much noisier and less complete than the single-crystal X-ray structure of the middle member.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interlayer water content can be used as a design knob to tune stacking and spacing in copper selenites without rebuilding the magnetic Cu2+ lattice.
  • The same L-layer phases are reactive intermediates that convert under reflux into phase-pure Cu2OSeO3, giving a controllable precursor route to that skyrmion-host material.
  • Because the distorted kagomé-like Cu2+ network is preserved, magnetic exchange and possible frustration can be compared across known stacking sequences and interlayer distances.
  • The structural motif may extend to other divalent metals (Zn, Mg, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni), opening a broader family of hydration-responsive layered selenites.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If interlayer water can be cycled reversibly at mild humidity or temperature, these needles could function as humidity-driven actuators or sensors without compositional change of the copper network.
  • Comparing spin correlations or magnon spectra on the three stacking variants would isolate the effect of interlayer hydrogen-bond pathways on low-dimensional Cu2+ magnetism.
  • The large jump in interlayer spacing at x = 3 suggests a possible staging or multi-plane water arrangement that could be exploited for selective intercalation of other small molecules.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the reflux synthesis and structural characterization of a new family of layered copper selenites, (NH3)2Cu5(SeO3)2(OH)6·(H2O)2+x (x = 0, 1, 3). Using single-crystal XRD for x = 1 and 3D electron diffraction for x = 0 and 3, the authors conclude that all three phases share a common L-layer of Cu(OH)4 squares and Cu-centered square pyramids that form a distorted kagomé-like Cu2+ network, while interlayer water content controls both interlayer separation (reported as 2.63 → 2.92 → 3.93 Å) and stacking registry (NH3 facing SeO3 for x = 0 versus NH3 facing NH3 for x = 1, 3). Time-resolved powder XRD further shows that these hydrates act as reactive intermediates that convert under continued reflux into phase-pure Cu2OSeO3. The work frames the series as a platform for hydration-responsive materials and as tunable precursors to a skyrmion-hosting oxoselenite.

Significance. The Cu–Se–N–O–H chemical space is sparsely mapped, and a hydration series that preserves an intralayer Cu2+ topology while switching interlayer separation and stacking is of genuine interest for both crystal chemistry and low-dimensional magnetism. The x = 1 structure is of high quality (SC-XRD, R1 = 3.02%, near-complete data), the conversion pathway to Cu2OSeO3 is experimentally tracked, and the materials connection to a known skyrmion host is concrete. If the common-layer / hydration-controlled-stacking picture holds under closer metric comparison, the paper supplies a rare, chemically simple platform for hydration-responsive design and for testing how interlayer water modulates magnetic coupling in a distorted kagomé-like lattice. Strengths include multi-probe structure determination (SC-XRD + 3D-ED), powder-pattern indexing of the minority hydrate, and a clear synthetic timeline to Cu2OSeO3.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table 1; structure determination of x = 0 and x = 3; Figs. 4–6] Table 1 and the x = 0 / x = 3 structure-determination sections: the central claim that the L-layer atomic arrangement is “identical” (and that intralayer H-bond schemes match x = 1) rests on 3D-ED models with R1 = 17.31% (x = 0) and 19.49% (x = 3), completeness ~77–78%, and, for x = 3, 171 restraints on 122 parameters with water H atoms not reliably located. Kinematical ED at these residuals can bias light-atom positions and interlayer registry. Please add a quantitative comparison to the reliable x = 1 SC-XRD model—e.g., tables of Cu–Cu and Cu–O distances within the L-layer, RMSD or overlay metrics for the Cu/Se/O/N framework, and explicit statement of which coordinates were restrained—so that “identical layer, hydration-only stacking control” is evidenced rather than asserted. If residuals preclude strict identity, the language should be softened to “closely related / isostructural L-l
  2. [Layer Stacking section; Fig. 6] Layer-stacking section and Fig. 6: interlayer separation is defined as the distance between planes of N atoms of successive L-layers and is used to quantify the 2.63 → 2.92 → 3.93 Å expansion across three different space groups and β angles. Because the metric depends on the N-plane definition and on the relative lateral shift (half-cell for x = 0), please report how the planes were fitted, give estimated uncertainties, and, if possible, an alternative metric (e.g., Cu(2)/Cu(3)-plane to Cu(2)/Cu(3)-plane) so that the ~50% expansion claim is robust to the choice of reference plane.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title, Abstract, Table 1] Formula notation is inconsistent across title, abstract, body, and Table 1 (middot vs no middot; (H2O)2+x vs ·(H2O)2+x; sometimes (H2O)3 written without the 2+x form). Standardize to one crystallographic formula style throughout.
  2. [Fig. 5] Fig. 5: the experimental powder pattern is overlaid with calculated patterns for x = 0, 1, 3, but preferred orientation of the needles is acknowledged later; a brief note in the caption on which peaks are most orientation-sensitive would help the reader judge the phase assignment of the 7.9° reflection.
  3. [Fig. 7] Fig. 7b phase fractions are defined from single-peak heights under strong preferred orientation and are correctly called qualitative; stating the chosen peaks in the caption (as done in the text) would make the panel self-contained.
  4. [Conversion of ... into Cu2OSeO3] The reaction equations in the conversion section are introduced with colons but the actual balanced equations appear to be missing or truncated in the text (“according to the reaction:” / “with the selenite species released into the solution:”). Please insert the balanced equations.
  5. [References] Reference [43] is used both for Jeffrey’s H-bond classification and later appears in a magnetism context in the reference list numbering; check that in-text citations point to the intended entries after any renumbering.
  6. [Experimental section; passim] Typographical: “kagom´ e” spacing/encoding artifacts appear in several places; “ammine” vs “ammonia” usage is fine but “NH4OH solution with a concentration from 1.1×10−2 to 6.6×10−2 mol L−1” could specify whether concentration was used as a control variable for selecting x.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: experimental structure determination and phase evolution; claims rest on diffraction data, not on self-defined or fitted predictions.

full rationale

This is a synthetic/structural materials paper. The central claim—that three hydrates share a common L-layer while hydration controls interlayer spacing and stacking—is drawn from single-crystal XRD (x=1) and 3D-ED (x=0,3) refinements plus powder XRD phase tracking, not from a derivation that reuses its own inputs. There are no fitted parameters relabeled as predictions, no uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz imported via self-citation. The only self-citation ([44]) reports magnetometry/SANS on the Cu2OSeO3 end product and does not underwrite the stacking or L-layer identity claims. Weaknesses in the ED refinements (high R1, incomplete data, missing H atoms) are correctness/evidence-quality issues, not circular reasoning. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks: structures are measured, compared, and the conversion pathway is time-resolved by powder XRD.

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

Load-bearing content is experimental: standard coordination chemistry and diffraction practice, plus the authors’ identification of a common L-layer and three hydration states. No numerical model is fitted to force the central claim. The main soft points are domain assumptions that high-R ED models still prove layer identity, and the named but not independently evidenced ‘L-layer’ construction used to unify the series.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard single-crystal X-ray and 3D electron diffraction structure solution/refinement (space-group assignment from systematic absences, independent-atom model, hydrogen placement/restraint practice) correctly recover the heavy-atom frameworks.
    Invoked throughout the structure-determination sections and Table 1; without it the three hydrates and stacking comparison collapse.
  • domain assumption Cu···O(H2O) contacts of 2.5–3.0 Å are too long to count water as part of the Cu coordination sphere, so intralayer water is guest water held by H-bonds to SeO3.
    Stated in the x=1 structure discussion; fixes the L-layer formula as (NH3)2Cu5(SeO3)2(OH)6·(H2O)2 plus variable interlayer water.
  • ad hoc to paper Interlayer separation measured between planes of N atoms of successive L-layers is a valid metric for comparing hydration-driven expansion across the three space groups.
    Defined in the Fig. 6 caption; alternative plane choices (e.g., Cu planes) could shift absolute numbers though not the qualitative expansion trend.
  • domain assumption Jeffrey-type geometric criteria (O···O, H···O, angle) classify the observed O–H···O contacts as moderate/electrostatic hydrogen bonds that stabilize both intra- and interlayer water.
    Cited via Jeffrey [43] in the H-bonding discussion; used to argue cohesion between layers for x=1 and, by O···O distances only, for x=3.
invented entities (2)
  • L-layer: (NH3)2Cu5(SeO3)2(OH)6·(H2O)2 sheet of Cu(OH)4 squares + Cu square pyramids independent evidence
    purpose: Unifies x=0,1,3 as the same intralayer architecture so that hydration can be isolated as the variable controlling stacking and interlayer spacing.
    Constructed from the three structure solutions; identity across hydrates is only as good as the weaker ED models.
  • Hydration series (NH3)2Cu5(SeO3)2(OH)6·(H2O)2+x with x=0,1,3 independent evidence
    purpose: Names the new family and frames water content as a discrete structural control parameter.
    Defined by composition and structure determination; x=0 is trace-only and x=3 is beam-sensitive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydration-Controlled Layer Stacking in (NH$_3$)$_2$Cu$_5$(SeO$_3$)$_2$(OH)$_6$(H$_2$O)$_{2+x}$ ($x$ = 0, 1, and 3)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P34MME4M

@misc{pith2026260728427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydration-Controlled Layer Stacking in (NH$_3$)$_2$Cu$_5$(SeO$_3$)$_2$(OH)$_6$(H$_2$O)$_2+x$ ($x$ = 0, 1, and 3)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P34MME4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28427}
}
abstract

Hydration and dehydration are powerful yet underexplored variables for controlling the architecture of layered inorganic materials, because intercalated water can modify interlayer separation, hydrogen-bonding networks, and layer stacking. Here, we report the reflux synthesis of a new family of hydrated layered copper selenites, (NH$_3$)$_2$Cu$_5$(SeO$_3$)$_2$(OH)$_6$(H$_2$O)$_{2+x}$ ($x$ = 0, 1, and 3). From the crystal structures determined using electron diffraction and single crystal X-ray diffraction, we deduce that all three compounds share an identical layer built from Cu(OH)$_4$ squares and Cu-centered square pyramids forming distorted kagom\'e-like Cu$^{2+}$ network. While the intralayer atomic arrangement is preserved across the series, the degree of hydration governs both the interlayer separation and the stacking sequence. These compounds therefore provide a rare platform relevant to the design of hydration-responsive materials for sensing, ion transport, separations, actuation, and energy-related applications. The preservation of distorted kagom\'e-like Cu$^{2+}$ layers across hydration states further suggests potential interest for examining how interlayer water and stacking sequence affect low-dimensional magnetic coupling. Under reflux conditions, these phases are also shown to act as reactive intermediates in the formation of Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$, establishing them as tunable precursors for copper oxoselenite synthesis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Escamilla, A

    R. Escamilla, A. Duran, M. Rosales, E. Mor´ an, and M. Alario-Franco, The effect of Mn substitution on the structure and magnetic properties of Se(Cu 1−xMnx)O3 solid solution, J. Phys. Condens. Matter15, 1951 (2003)

    1951

  2. [2]

    Effenberger, Die kristallstrukturen von drei modifika- tionen des Cu(SeO 3), Z

    H. Effenberger, Die kristallstrukturen von drei modifika- tionen des Cu(SeO 3), Z. Kristallogr.175, 61 (1986)

    1986

  3. [3]

    H. C. Snyman and C. W. Pistorius, Polymorphism in the selenates of Mg, Mn, Co and Cu at high pressures, Z. Kristallogr.120, 317 (1964)

    1964

  4. [4]

    H. S. Effenberger, G. Giester, and M. Wildner, CuSeO 4 and Cu(SeO 3OH)2·6H2O, two novel copper-selenium (VI) oxysalts, Mineral. Petrol.117, 307 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Becker and H

    R. Becker and H. Berger, Reinvestigation of CuSe 2O5, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. E62, i256 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    V. M. Kovrugin, I. V. Kornyakov, V. V. Gurzhiy, O. I. Siidra, M. Colmont, O. Mentre, and S. V. Krivovichev, Synthesis and crystal structure ofβ-CuSe 2O5, a new polymorph of copper diselenite, Mendeleev Commun.27, 61 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Effenberger and F

    H. Effenberger and F. Pertlik, Die kristallstrukturen der kupfer (ii)-oxo-selenite Cu 2O(SeO3) (kubisch und monoklin) und Cu 4O(SeO3)3 (monoklin und triklin), Monatsh. Chem.117, 887 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    Arakcheeva, P

    A. Arakcheeva, P. R. Baral, W. H. Bi, C. Jandl, O. Jan- son, and A. Magrez, Cu2OSeO3 turns trigonal with struc- tural transformation and implications for skyrmions, Sci. Rep.15, 31945 (2025)

    2025

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Kolitsch, Copper(ii) selenate pentahydrate, CuSeO4·5H2O, Acta Crystallogr., Sect

    U. Kolitsch, Copper(ii) selenate pentahydrate, CuSeO4·5H2O, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. E57, i104 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    Effenberger, Cu(SeO 2OH)2: synthesis and crystal structure, Z

    H. Effenberger, Cu(SeO 2OH)2: synthesis and crystal structure, Z. Kristallogr.173, 267 (1985)

    1985

  3. [11]

    Lafront and J

    A. Lafront and J. Trombe, ‘Layered hydrogense- lenite’ I. Synthesis, structure redetermination of [Cu(HSeO 3)2(H2O)2] and determination of [Cu(HSeO3)2(NO3)2]2−·2NH+ 4 , NH 4NO3. Structural relationships of these complexes with [Cu(HSeO 3)2], Inorg. Chim.234, 19 (1995)

    1995

  4. [12]

    Canossa, E

    S. Canossa, E. Bell` e, M. Delferro, G. Predieri, and C. Graiff, Structural motifs in heteroleptic copper and cadmium selenites, Inorg. Chim. Acta.470, 206 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Iskhakova and N

    L. Iskhakova and N. Kozlova, Crystal structures of MSeO 4·H2O (M= Ni or Cu), Kristallografiya40, 583 (1995)

    1995

  6. [14]

    Keding, C

    L. Keding, C. Zhangru, and M. Zhesheng, The crystal structure of clinochalcomenite, Kexue Tongbao29, 352 (1984)

    1984

  7. [15]

    Giester, New copper selenites

    G. Giester, New copper selenites. Part B: Cu2(SeO3)2·H2O and Tl(III) 2Cu3(SeO3)6, Z. Kristal- logr.214, 305 (1999)

    1999

  8. [16]

    Giester, Crystal structure of synthetic Cu3SeO4(OH)4, Monatsh

    G. Giester, Crystal structure of synthetic Cu3SeO4(OH)4, Monatsh. Chem.122, 229 (1991)

    1991

  9. [17]

    V. V. Gurzhiy, A. Al-Shuray, S. N. Britvin, and S. V. Krivovichev, Cu 3(SeO4)2(SeO3OH)2(H2O)16—the first example of a linear octahedral-tetrahedral heptamer in inorganic compounds, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem.2015, 5311 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Suquet and H

    H. Suquet and H. Pezerat, Parameters influencing layer stacking types in saponite and vermiculite: A review, Clays and Clay Minerals35, 353 (1987)

    1987

  11. [19]

    N. Iyi, K. Fujii, K. Okamoto, and T. Sasaki, Factors influencing the hydration of layered double hydroxides (LDHs) and the appearance of an intermediate second staging phase, Applied Clay Science35, 218 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    H. J. Ahn, S. J. Kim, H. G. Kim, Y. Jee, and S. H. Huh, Two-dimensional hydration and triple-interlayer lattice structures in sulfate-intercalated graphene oxide nanosheets, Minerals14, 1030 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    H. An, T. Habib, S. Shah, H. Gao, A. Patel, I. Echols, X. Zhao, M. Radovic, M. J. Green, and J. L. Lutkenhaus, Water sorption in MXene/polyelectrolyte multilayers for ultrafast humidity sensing, ACS Appl. Nano Mater.2, 948 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    F. A. Anwar, W. Rahmah, and G. T. Kadja, Recent ad- 10 vances in two-dimensional MXene membranes for emerg- ing nanofiltration applications: a review, Nano Trends , 100154 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Zhang, J

    D. Zhang, J. Ding, Y. Zhou, and J. Ju, Research progress on moisture-sorption actuators materials, Nanomaterials 14, 1544 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    D. Fang, L. Huang, J. Fan, H. Xiao, G. Wu, Y. Wang, Z. Zeng, F. Shen, S. Deng, and F. Ji, New insights into the arrangement pattern of layered double hydroxide nanosheets and their ion-exchange behavior with phos- phate, Chem. Eng. J.441, 136057 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Park and X

    Y. Park and X. Chen, Water-responsive materials for sus- tainable energy applications, J. Mater. Chem. A8, 15227 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Morosin, The crystal structures of copper tetrammine complexes

    B. Morosin, The crystal structures of copper tetrammine complexes. A. Cu(NH 3)4SO2·H2O and Cu(NH 3)4SeO4, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B25, 19 (1969)

    1969

  19. [27]

    G. Giester, The crystal struc- tures of Ag +Cu2(OH)(SO4)2·H2O and Me+Cu2(OH)(SeO4)2·H2O [Me += Ag, Tl, NH 4], four new representatives of the natrochalcite type, with a note on natural natrochalcite, Z. Kristallogr.187, 239 (1989)

    1989

  20. [28]

    Z. Liu, H. Zhou, S. S. Ang, and J.-J. Zhang, Evalua- tion of low-cost natrochalcite Na[Cu 2(OH)(H2O)(SO4)2] as an anode material for Li-and Na-ion batteries, Elec- trochimica Acta211, 619 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Monge and E

    A. Monge and E. Gutierrez-Puebla, Diammonium copper bis (selenate) hexahydrate, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B37, 427 (1981)

    1981

  22. [30]

    Smith, P

    J. Smith, P. Weinberger, and A. Werner, Dehydration performance of a novel solid solution library of mixed Tutton salts as thermochemical heat storage materials, J. Energy Storage78, 110003 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Ghosh, M

    S. Ghosh, M. Oliveira, T. S. Pacheco, G. J. Perp´ etuo, and C. J. Franco, Growth and characterization of am- monium nickel-cobalt sulfate Tutton’s salt for UV light applications, J. Cryst. Growth487, 104 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Bejaoui, A

    A. Bejaoui, A. Souamti, M. Kahlaoui, A. D. Lozano- Gorr ´ ın, J. M. Palomino, and D. B. H. Chehimi, Synthesis, characterization, thermal analysis and electrical proper- ties of (NH 4)2M(SO 4)2·6H2O (M= Cu, Co, Ni), Mater. Sci. Eng. B240, 97 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Tastanov, N

    Y. Tastanov, N. Serzhanova, A. Ultarakova, N. Sadykov, Z. Yerzhanova, and A. Tastanova, Recycling of chrome- containing waste from a mining and processing plant to produce industrial products, Processes11, 1659 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Hfidhi, N

    N. Hfidhi, N. Krayem, J. Erwann, T. Bataille, and H. Naili, Lamellar and supramolecular fea- ture of new Tutton’s salts incorporating 2-Amino- 4-Methylpyrimidine: Thermal stability, optic study, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities, J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater.31, 15...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Fleck, U

    M. Fleck, U. Kolitsch, B. Hertweck, G. Giester, M. Wild- ner, M. Prem, and A. Wohlschl¨ ager, Crystal structures of the double salt dihydrates K 2Cd(SeO4)2·2H2O, K2Mn(SO4)2·2H2O, (NH 4)2Cu(SeO4)2·2H2O and KFeH(SO4)2·2H2O, Z. Kristallogr.217, 242 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Constable, S

    E. Constable, S. Raymond, S. Petit, E. Ressouche, F. Bourdarot, J. Debray, M. Josse, O. Fabelo, H. Berger, S. DeBrion,et al., Magnetic and dielectric order in the kagomelike francisite Cu 3Bi(SeO3)2O2Cl, Phys. Rev. B 96, 014413 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    D. I. Badrtdinov, E. S. Kuznetsova, V. Y. Verchenko, P. S. Berdonosov, V. A. Dolgikh, V. V. Mazurenko, and A. A. Tsirlin, Magnetism of coupled spin tetrahedra in ilinskite-type KCu 5O2(SeO3)2Cl3, Sci. Rep.8, 2379 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Janson, A

    O. Janson, A. A. Tsirlin, E. S. Osipova, P. S. Berdonosov, A. V. Olenev, V. A. Dolgikh, and H. Rosner, CaCu2(SeO3)2Cl2: Spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain compound with complex frustrated interchain couplings, Phys. Rev. B83, 144423 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    S. Seki, X. Yu, S. Ishiwata, and Y. Tokura, Observation of skyrmions in a multiferroic material, Science336, 198 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    N. Shi, Y. Wang, H. Li, Y. Lv, H. Takatsu, H.-J. Koo, C. Dong, R. K. Kremer, J. Wang, M.-H. Whangbo,et al., Magnetic copper selenite- sulfate Cu 3O2(HSeO3)(HSO4)(H2O) with T26-type non-Archimedean lattice featuring a robust 1/3- magnetization plateau, Inorg. Chem.65, 9155 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    K. Kohn, K. Inoue, O. Horie, and S.-I. Akimoto, Crystal chemistry ofMSeO 3 andMTeO 3 (M= Mg, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn), J. Solid State Chem.18, 27 (1976)

    1976

  34. [42]

    Lawes, A

    G. Lawes, A. Ramirez, C. Varma, and M. Subrama- nian, Magnetodielectric effects from spin fluctuations in isostructural ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 257208 (2003)

    2003

  35. [43]

    G. A. Jeffrey and G. A. Jeffrey,An introduction to hydro- gen bonding, Vol. 12 (Oxford university press New York, 1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    P. R. Baral, V. Ukleev, T. LaGrange, R. Cubitt, I. Zivkovic, H. M. Rønnow, J. S. White, and A. Magrez, Tuning topological spin textures in size-tailored chiral magnet insulator particles, J. Phys. Chem. C126, 11855 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.