Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Geometric closure of classical nucleation theory for magnetic-field-controlled nanoparticle size across magnetic classes

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · 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 a single field-driven thermodynamic equation determines the critical nucleus size of nanoparticles formed under magnetic fields, unifying superparamagnetic, paramagnetic, and diamagnetic materials.

desk verdict Coherent extension of susceptibility-only nucleation theory, but the claimed quantitative validation is in-sample and does not yet beat simple empirical fits. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06220 v1 pith:SHDAHE47 submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.mes-hall

Yazeed Tawalbeh , Mauro Fernandes Pereira This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords classicalnucleationtheorynanoparticlesizecontrolmagnetic-field-assistedsynthesiscriticalnucleusspherepackingsuperparamagneticmagnetiteLangevinorientationalentropysusceptibility-onlylimit
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 tries to establish that a single field-driven thermodynamic equation governs the critical nucleus size of nanoparticles formed under magnetic fields, across superparamagnetic, paramagnetic, and diamagnetic materials. It closes classical nucleation theory geometrically by representing each nucleus as a densely packed core surrounded by a defective surface shell, which links discrete atomic packing to continuum free-energy terms. Differentiating the nucleation-barrier stationarity condition along the magnetic field yields an evolution equation for the critical radius, and the paper shows this equation reproduces the measured decrease in mean radius and the narrowing of size distributions for magnetite and nickel nanoparticles as the field grows. In the limit of no permanent moment, the equation integrates to the earlier susceptibility-based silver nanoparticle description, making that result a special case. If the claim is correct, magnetic-field-assisted synthesis can be predicted with a cheap continuum calculation rather than material-specific or atomistic models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (3), the field-evolution equation for the critical radius on the manifold $\partial \Delta F/\partial x = 0$, together with the sphere-packing atom-count function $n(x) = \varphi_b (x-\delta)^3 + \varphi_d [x^3 - (x-\delta)^3]$ that links discrete atomic packing to the continuum free energy. The atom-count function supplies the derivatives $n'(x)$ and $n''(x)$ that appear in the equation, and its core-shell structure, a dense interior and a defective surface shell, is what makes the geometric closure possible. Eq. (3) does the work: it converts the implicit stationarity condition into an explicit trajectory $x(B)$, so both the mean radius and the propagated ensemble spread can be compared with experiment.

What would settle it

Measure, by in-situ transmission electron microscopy during the nucleation stage, the sizes of magnetite or nickel clusters that first become post-critical at several magnetic field strengths, before appreciable growth, and compare the early radii with the zero-field-seeded solutions of Eq. (3). If the early critical sizes do not decrease monotonically with field, or if the final-size ordering can be reproduced by growth alone in zero field, the claim that the field selects the critical nucleus would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the critical nucleus radius $x(B)$ evolves along the manifold defined by $\partial \Delta F/\partial x = 0$ according to Eq. (3), an ordinary differential equation obtained by differentiating the stationarity condition with respect to magnetic field. The free energy $\Delta F$ contains four terms: surface formation, bulk driving force, induced magnetization, and a Langevin-type orientational-entropy term for permanent moments, with the atom count $n(x)$ built from sphere packing. The paper argues that this single evolution law explains the previously unresolved experimental trend that stronger magnetic fields produce smaller and more uniform magnetite and nickel nanoparticles, and that the narrowing of size distributions emerges from the curvature of the field-modified free-energy landscape once the initial size spread is propagated through the same equation. In the $m_0 \to 0$ limit the equation becomes an exact differential whose first integral is precisely the earlier susceptibility-only radius-field relation, confirming the silver case as a limiting case rather than a separate theory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that later growth, coalescence, aggregation, and ripening either stay comparable within each experimental series or do not reverse the size hierarchy set during nucleation; this matters most for the nickel catalyst seeds, which are measured only after a high-temperature carbon-nanofiber or GaN-nanowire growth step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a material whose parameters $\Delta\mu$, $\gamma$, $m_0$, and $\delta$ can be estimated or fitted from a few radius-field points, the model supplies a full radius-field curve and a predicted size-distribution width, so synthesis plans can be guided by field strength without scanning conditions blindly.
  • The same equation should extend to other superparamagnetic and paramagnetic systems, with the prediction that field-induced size reduction is accompanied by distribution narrowing wherever the critical-manifold curvature is negative.
  • Because the permanent-moment term scales differently with nucleus size than the induced-magnetization term, measurements at different temperatures or field strengths could separate the two contributions, giving the framework predictive content beyond fitting.
  • The recovery of the susceptibility-only silver relation as a limiting case means all previously reported silver radius-field results can be re-expressed as special cases of this formalism rather than as material-specific models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a natural next test is to apply the same ODE to ferrimagnetic or antiferromagnetic nanoparticles with anisotropic susceptibility, since the Gaussian orientation factor already parameterizes angular spread around an alignment direction.
  • Editorial inference: the collective-moment assumption, where the whole nucleus carries one effective moment $m = n(x) m_0$ instead of $n$ independent atomic moments, could be tested by comparing the predicted low-field $B^2$ narrowing with measurements on dilute superparamagnetic colloids where interparticle interactions are negligible.
  • Editorial inference: the theory predicts that the size-distribution narrowing is monotone in the field curvature, so reporting higher-order moments of experimental histograms at several fields would provide a sharper test than mean radius alone.
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 paper reformulates classical nucleation theory for magnetic-field-controlled nanoparticle nucleation by introducing a sphere-packing atom-count function n(x) and adding magnetic free-energy terms to the standard surface and bulk terms. The central result is Eq. (3), an ODE for the critical nucleus radius as a function of applied field, obtained by differentiating the stationarity condition of the free energy. The authors validate the model against radius-field data for superparamagnetic magnetite, paramagnetic nickel catalyst particles, and diamagnetic silver, and show that the susceptibility-only limit, Eq. (4), integrates to their earlier silver description. They further claim that the model explains both the reduction of mean particle size and the narrowing of size distributions with increasing field. The paper closes with a limitation section acknowledging neglected kinetic processes and possible non-extensive effects.

Significance. If the quantitative claims held, the framework would be valuable: it is computationally inexpensive, covers three magnetic classes in one formalism, and recovers the authors' earlier susceptibility-based silver result as a clean limiting case. The algebraic derivation of Eq. (3) from Eq. (1) is internally consistent, and the exactness argument in SI S4 for the silver limit is a nice formal result. However, the validation as presented does not establish the central quantitative claim. All model parameters and the zero-field initial radius are taken from or fitted to the same experiments, the datasets contain only 3-6 field points, and the paper's own SI benchmark shows that simple empirical polynomials fit the same data at least as well or better on the reported εw metric. The distribution-narrowing prediction is also partly imposed by an assumed Gaussian shape. The framework is a plausible candidate explanation, but it needs out-of-sample testing or independent parameter estimation before the claim of quantitative reproduction is supportable.

major comments (5)
  1. [SI S6, Fig. S1] The manuscript's own benchmark undercuts the central quantitative claim. On the paper's distribution-width-normalized metric εw, Eq. (3) gives 0.43, 0.36, 0.11, and 0.07 for the four datasets, whereas a quadratic polynomial fitted to the same data gives 0.30, 0.24, 0.00, and 0.03, and a linear fit beats Eq. (3) for both magnetite datasets. Thus Eq. (3) is not the best-fitting curve on the reported metric for any dataset, despite having four fitted parameters plus an experimentally anchored initial condition. The agreement with experiment therefore currently demonstrates fitting flexibility rather than predictive content. The authors should provide an out-of-sample test, such as leave-one-field-out cross-validation, or fix parameters from independent measurements, before claiming quantitative reproduction.
  2. [Methods, Eq. (3)] The fitted parameter set p={Δμ, γ, m0, δ} and the initial condition x0 are all determined from the same experimental radius-field curves that the model is claimed to reproduce. With 4 parameters, an experimental anchor, and only 3-6 field points per dataset, the least-squares fit is heavily underdetermined; the SI itself states that the datasets are too sparse to give unique formal uncertainties for the four fitted parameters. The model's success in matching the measured points is therefore not evidence for the physical content of Eq. (3). The authors should either estimate parameters from independent thermodynamic or magnetic data, or clearly present the work as a fitting exercise rather than a quantitative prediction.
  3. [Eq. (1), SI S1] The permanent-moment entropy term is built on the ansatz m = n(x)m0, i.e., a single collective magnetic moment proportional to nucleus size. This is an additional modeling assumption, not a consequence of the statistical mechanics of n independent atomic moments, and it controls the size dependence of the term that distinguishes superparamagnetic and paramagnetic systems from the susceptibility-only limit. The choice is physically motivated for superparamagnetic particles but should be tested, for example against known superparamagnetic magnetization or blocking-temperature data, rather than treated as an axiom. As written, the fit of m0 absorbs much of the model's freedom, so the apparent agreement in Figs. 2 and 3 is partly a test of this assumption rather than of the nucleation framework.
  4. [SI S5, Methods] The predicted size-distribution narrowing is only partially derived from the model. The ODE propagates the experimental mean and the two experimental bounds, yielding a shrinking band [rmin, rmax], but the histogram is then imposed as a truncated Gaussian with σ = min(r0 - rmin, rmax - r0)/3. The Gaussian shape and the 1/3 factor are assumptions, not outputs of the free-energy landscape. Consequently, the statement that narrowing 'emerges naturally from the curvature' is supported only for the range of radii, not for the distribution shape. A direct comparison of predicted and measured histograms without the assumed Gaussian closure, or a derivation of the full size distribution from the free-energy curvature, would be needed to substantiate the distribution-narrowing claim.
  5. [Results: Nickel catalyst datasets] For the Ni-CNF and Ni-GaN datasets, the measured radii are catalyst particles after a high-temperature growth step (700 K and 750 K), not directly nucleated particles. The paper explicitly acknowledges the assumption that post-nucleation growth, coalescence, ripening, and transport do not reverse the field-selected size hierarchy, but provides no evidence for this assumption. Since these two datasets are the ones with the smallest εw values and therefore carry much of the quantitative validation, the agreement could be coincidental if later growth stages reorder particle sizes. The authors should either identify independent evidence that the seed-size ordering survives the growth step or temper the claim that these datasets validate the nucleation model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1), Notation] The orientation factor Θ(σ) is not fully specified for the values used in the fits: at σ=0, the Gaussian weight gives Θ=+1 for paramagnetic alignment (θ0=0) and Θ=-1 for diamagnetic alignment (θ0=π), but the text does not state how the sign of Θ enters K for the diamagnetic silver case. Please define the sign convention explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that the bars represent the size-distribution width rather than measurement errors, which is helpful. However, the definition of εw uses wi as the 'plotted radius distribution width' without stating whether wi is the full width, half-width, or standard deviation. Please define wi precisely.
  3. [SI S6, Table S1-S4] The sensitivity tables use Es = 4πa²γ, but the main text and Eq. (3) are written in terms of γ. Please state the relation between Es and γ explicitly in the main text or in the SI so that the tables can be read without ambiguity.
  4. [Eq. (3), General] The denominator of Eq. (3) could vanish for some parameter combinations, which would make the critical-manifold ODE singular. The paper does not discuss whether the fitted parameter sets avoid such singularities over the experimental field ranges. A brief note on existence and uniqueness of solutions for the reported fits would be useful.
  5. [Results, Distribution comparisons] The violin-plot comparison in Fig. 3 is only qualitative. Since the theoretical histograms are constructed from an assumed Gaussian, a quantitative histogram metric (e.g., a Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic or a width ratio) would help the reader judge how well the predicted distributions actually match the experimental ones.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central validation is an in-sample least-squares fit of Eq. (3) to the same radius-field data, and the paper's own empirical benchmarks beat the model on all four datasets.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results and Discussion, after Eq. (3); Materials and Methods, Theoretical Framework]
    "We solve Eq. (3) numerically (at σ=0) as an initial value problem with the initial condition x(B=0)=x0 where x0 is the peak of the most frequent radius inferred from the experiments. The parameter set p={Δμ,γ,m0,δ} is used as the least squares fit parameters varied iteratively to find the best fit parameter set p∗."

    The curves presented as quantitative reproduction in Fig. 2 are obtained by fixing x0 to the experimental mean radius and least-squares fitting the ODE trajectory to the very same experimental mean radii. The reported εw values are therefore in-sample residuals, not prediction errors: the agreement is statistically forced by the four fitted parameters plus the anchored initial condition. The paper's own Fig. S1 confirms this, since a quadratic polynomial fitted to the same data gives εw=0.30, 0.24, 0.00, 0.03 for the four datasets, lower than Eq. (3) in every case, so the central 'quantitatively reproduces' claim does not even identify the best-fitting curve.

  2. other [Materials and Methods, Theoretical Framework (histogram construction)]
    "At any magnetic field value, we now have three points that represent the theoretical mean NP size (black line) and the theoretical bounds. We use these points to introduce a Gaussian distribution centered on the mean with its tails at the two theoretical bounds, with a standard deviation σ=min(r0−rmin,rmax−r0)/3, placing the bounds at approximately ±3σ. This distribution is then interpreted as the predicted probability density of NP sizes at that magnetic field."

    The 'naturally emerging' distribution narrowing is not fully derived from the free-energy landscape: the predicted size distribution is defined as a Gaussian whose standard deviation is set to min(r0−rmin,rmax−r0)/3 and whose support is exactly the propagated bounds. The contraction of the bounds does come from the ODE, but the Gaussian shape and the width formula are imposed, and the initial bounds are experimental histogram bounds. The histogram comparison in Fig. 3 therefore measures a partially selected quantity rather than an independent prediction of the narrowing effect.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Supplementary Information S4; main text, Susceptibility-Only Limit: Silver NPs]
    "Hence, the integrated form of the differential equation is 8πγa2x(B)−(Δμ+KB2)n′(x(B))=0 (S38) which exactly matches the r vs B relation from our previous work 28 (up to the substitution of anchor points)."

    This identity is not an independent confirmation of the silver limit: the generalized free energy in Eq. (S7) was built by adding the new orientational-entropy term to the authors' earlier free-energy expression for Ag NPs, so setting m0=0 returns that earlier input model by construction. The self-citation is therefore load-bearing for the silver limiting-case claim, although it does not by itself invalidate the magnetite/nickel generalization.

full rationale

The formal derivation of Eq. (3) by differentiating the stationarity condition of Eq. (1) is mathematically self-contained, and the sphere-packing closure for n(x) is a modeling choice with independent packing-data input. What is circular is the validation chain that supports the quantitative claim. The 'predicted' radius-field curves use x0 = experimental mean radius and p* least-squares fitted to exactly the same experimental mean radii, so Figs. 2 and 3 show goodness of fit, not prediction. Supplementary Fig. S1 makes this concrete: on the paper's own εw metric, a quadratic polynomial beats Eq. (3) for every dataset (e.g., 0.30 vs 0.43 for Fe3O4 gradient; 0.00 vs 0.11 for Ni-CNF). The size-distribution narrowing is partly imposed by defining the Gaussian width as σ=min(r0−rmin,rmax−r0)/3 from propagated bounds. Finally, the silver-limit 'recovery' of the authors' earlier susceptibility-only relation is by construction, since Eq. (S7) was written by adding the orientation term to that earlier expression. Thus the central claim that unresolved data are 'quantitatively reproduced' partially reduces to a fit; the theoretical framework itself is not definitionally equivalent to its inputs, so the paper scores a 6 rather than an 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on four fitted parameters per dataset, an experimental initial condition, and a strong post-nucleation assumption. No new physical entity is proposed beyond the collective-moment modeling device, which has no independent falsifiable handle.

free parameters (6)
  • Delta-mu (chemical potential difference) = not tabulated, per dataset
    Least-squares fit parameter controlling bulk driving force.
  • gamma (surface free energy) = not tabulated, per dataset
    Least-squares fit parameter controlling surface term.
  • m0 (atomic moment scale) = not tabulated, per dataset
    Least-squares fit parameter controlling permanent-moment entropy term.
  • delta (defective shell thickness) = not tabulated, per dataset
    Least-squares fit parameter controlling atom-count shell correction.
  • phi_d (surface packing fraction) = 0.517
    Fixed from Packomania sphere-packing data; effectively a chosen constant, not fitted in this paper.
  • x0 (zero-field critical radius) = experimental distribution peak
    Initial condition inferred from experiments; anchors the ODE solution.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Classical nucleation theory: the critical nucleus is a stationary point of the free-energy landscape
    Used throughout; defines f(x,B)=partial-delta-F/partial-x=0 and the critical-manifold ODE in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Sphere-packing atom count n(x)=phi_b(x-delta)^3+phi_d[x^3-(x-delta)^3]
    Idealized dense-core/defective-shell structure; phi_d=0.517 taken from Packomania data and delta is fitted.
  • ad hoc to paper The nucleus has one effective collective magnetic moment m=n(x)m0
    Introduced in Eq. (1) and SI S1; differs from n independent moments and changes the low-field scaling of the entropy term.
  • domain assumption Post-nucleation growth does not reverse the field-selected size hierarchy
    Stated in Results; required to compare critical seed radii with measured final particle radii, especially for Ni catalyst seeds.
  • domain assumption Susceptibility response and orientational entropy are distinct, non-double-counted contributions
    Cites Van Vleck (ref 33); the model relies on this to include both magnetic terms.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective collective nanoparticle magnetic moment m=n(x)m0
    purpose: Replaces n independent atomic moments with one orientation coordinate for the whole nucleus; makes the entropy term size-dependent
    No direct measurement; fitted m0 absorbs the approximation, so the entity has no external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric closure of classical nucleation theory for magnetic-field-controlled nanoparticle size across magnetic classes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SHDAHE47

@misc{pith2026260806220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric closure of classical nucleation theory for magnetic-field-controlled nanoparticle size across magnetic classes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SHDAHE47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06220}
}
read the original abstract

Controlling nanoparticle size during synthesis remains a central challenge in nanoscience, particularly in systems where external magnetic fields are used as continuous control parameters. Existing descriptions of magnetic-field-assisted nucleation are typically material-specific or rely on computationally intensive atomistic methods. Here, we reformulate classical nucleation theory as a geometrically closed thermodynamic framework by introducing a sphere-packing representation of atomic assembly. This construction establishes a direct link between discrete atomic structure and continuum free-energy contributions under applied magnetic fields, yielding a field-driven evolution equation for the critical nucleus size. The resulting theory provides a unified description of nanoparticle nucleation across superparamagnetic, paramagnetic, and diamagnetic systems within a single formalism. It quantitatively reproduces previously unresolved experimental observations for magnetite and nickel nanoparticles, namely the systematic reduction of mean particle size and narrowing of size distributions with increasing magnetic field. In the diamagnetic limit, the framework recovers our earlier analytical susceptibility-based description of silver nanoparticles, in which the field-dependent critical radius is governed by the induced-magnetization contribution to the nucleation free energy. Beyond modeling the reduction of mean particle size with increasing magnetic field, the framework reveals that the narrowing of size distributions emerges naturally from the curvature of the field-modified free-energy landscape. These results establish magnetic-field-assisted nucleation as a geometrically constrained thermodynamic process, providing a computationally efficient route for controlling nanoparticle size across distinct magnetic material classes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06220 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic illustration of the magnetic-field effect on the free-energy landscape. The thin red and blue curves are guide lines representing the free-energy barrier along the nucleation coordinate. The red curve corresponds to the absence of a magnetic field, while the blue curve corresponds to the presence of a magnetic field, illustrating that the applied field lowers the barrier associated with critical-nucleu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The radius–field relation for Magnetite NPs22 in (a) the gradient configuration and (b) the homogeneous configuration, and for Nickel NPs used in the synthesis of (c) carbon nanofibers26 and (d) GaN nanowires27. The blue markers are experimental points; the bars represent the size distribution width, not to be confused with measurement errors. The black line represents the solution of Eq.(3) for x(B = 0) = x0, the d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) A violin plot comparing the experimental and theoretical size distributions of magnetite NPs22 at selected magnetic-field values. The blue distributions correspond to the experimental data, while the red distributions correspond to the model-generated distributions. The vertical bars indicate the central radius of each distribution. In the homogeneous-field configuration, the theory predicts the field-induced sh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The radius-field relation for Silver NPs24 in the (a) parallel and (b) perpendicular configurations. Panels (c) and (d) show the theoretical size distributions at the last experimental point in the parallel and perpendicular configurations, respectively. The blue marke…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the susceptibility-only limiting equation and experimental radius-field data for (a) magnetite NPs in the gradient configuration, (b) magnetite NPs in the homogeneous configuration, (c) Ni NPs used for carbon nanofiber growth, and (d) Ni NPs used for…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2.Razeghi, M.Semiconductor Device Technology, 41–82 (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2010)

    Henini, M.Handbook of self assembled semiconductor nanostructures for novel devices in photonics and electronics (Elsevier, 2011). 2.Razeghi, M.Semiconductor Device Technology, 41–82 (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2010)

    work page 2011

  2. [3]

    Mishra, Y . K. & Adelung, R. Zno tetrapod materials for functional applications.Mater. Today21, 631–651, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2017.11.003 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2017.11.003 2018

  3. [4]

    K., Kaushik, A

    Mishra, Y . K., Kaushik, A. & Singh, A. Introduction to advanced materials for sensing and biomedical applications.Mater . Adv.5, 6346–6350, DOI: 10.1039/D4MA90092H (2024)

    work page doi:10.1039/d4ma90092h 2024

  4. [5]

    D.et al.Nanoparticles and nanostructures for biophotonic applications

    Fabrizio, E. D.et al.Nanoparticles and nanostructures for biophotonic applications. In Hashim, A. A. (ed.)The Delivery of Nanoparticles, chap. 14, DOI: 10.5772/34988 (IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2012)

    work page doi:10.5772/34988 2012

  5. [6]

    Dong, J.et al.Terahertz three-dimensional monitoring of nanoparticle-assisted laser tissue soldering.Biomed. Opt. Express 11, 2254–2267, DOI: 10.1364/BOE.389561 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1364/boe.389561 2020

  6. [7]

    Adv.2, 5318–5343, DOI: 10.1039/D1MA00538C (2021)

    Kumar, Y .et al.Nanomaterials: stimulants for biofuels and renewables, yield and energy optimization.Mater . Adv.2, 5318–5343, DOI: 10.1039/D1MA00538C (2021). 15/18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Magnetic field (T) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Radius (nm) εw Eq. 3: 0.43 Linear B: 0.33 Quadratic B: 0.30 Rational B2: 0.35 (a) Fe3O4 gradient Measured mean Eq. 3 in the main text Linear B ...

    work page doi:10.1039/d1ma00538c 2021

  7. [8]

    & Pereira, M

    Zafar, H. & Pereira, M. F. Complementary and asymmetric tapered bent mid-infrared waveguide arrays for subwavelength- pitch integration and crosstalk minimization.Sci. Rep.15, 44122 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [9]

    F., Kennedy, K

    Zafar, H., Pereira, M. F., Kennedy, K. L. & Anjum, D. H. Fabrication-tolerant and CMOS-compatible polarization splitter and rotator based on a compact bent-tapered directional coupler.AIP Adv.10(2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [10]

    & Pereira, M

    Zafar, H. & Pereira, M. F. Recent progress in light polarization control schemes for silicon integrated photonics.Laser & Photonics Rev.18, 2301025 (2024)

    2024

  2. [11]

    & Pereira, M

    Zafar, H. & Pereira, M. An efficient and compact mid-infrared polarization splitter and rotator based on a bifurcated tapered-bent waveguide.Sci. Reports15, 5160 (2025)

    2025

  3. [12]

    & Fernandes Pereira, M

    Zafar, H., Paredes, B., Villegas, J., Rasras, M. & Fernandes Pereira, M. O-band TE-and TM-mode densely packed adiabatically bent waveguide arrays on the silicon-on-insulator platform.Opt. Express31, 21389–21398 (2023)

    2023

  4. [13]

    Zafar, H.et al.Compact and broadband adiabatically bent superlattice-waveguides with negligible insertion loss and ultra-low crosstalk.IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.29, 1–9 (2023)

    2023

  5. [14]

    & Pereira, M

    Zafar, H. & Pereira, M. F. A novel mid-infrared transverse magnetic mode pass periodic waveguide polarizer with low reflections.IEEE Access12, 48294–48300 (2024)

    2024

  6. [15]

    Express30, 10087–10095, DOI: 10.1364/OE.452823 (2022)

    Zafar, H.et al.Compact broadband ( o, e, s, c, l & u bands) silicon te-pass polarizer based on ridge waveguide adiabatic s-bends.Opt. Express30, 10087–10095, DOI: 10.1364/OE.452823 (2022). 16/18 16.Uppu, R., Midolo, L., Zhou, X., Carolan, J. & Lodahl, P. Quantum-dot-based dete...

    2022 doi

  7. [17]

    A., Tesfahannes, T

    Wodedo, M. A., Tesfahannes, T. G., Darge, T. Y ., Pereira, M. & Teklu, B. Amplifying two-mode squeezing in nanome- chanical resonators.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Eng.6, 1–15, DOI: 10.1109/TQE.2025.3603459 (2025)

    2025

  8. [18]

    F., Anfertev, V ., Shevchenko, Y

    Pereira, M. F., Anfertev, V ., Shevchenko, Y . & Vaks, V . Giant controllable gigahertz to terahertz nonlinearities in superlattices.Sci. Rep.10, 15950 (2020)

    2020

  9. [19]

    F., Anfertev, V

    Pereira, M. F., Anfertev, V . A., Zubelli, J. P. & Vaks, V . L. Terahertz generation by gigahertz multiplication in superlattices. J. Nanophotonics11, 046022, DOI: 10.1117/1.JNP.11.046022 (2017)

    2017 doi

  10. [20]

    Pereira, M. F. Analytical expressions for numerical characterization of semiconductors per comparison with luminescence. Materials11, DOI: 10.3390/ma11010002 (2018)

    2018 doi

  11. [21]

    Rep.12, 18117 (2022)

    Vaks, V .et al.Sensing nitriles with THz spectroscopy of urine vapours from cancers patients subject to chemotherapy.Sci. Rep.12, 18117 (2022)

    2022

  12. [22]

    Nano Mater.5, 7410–7417 (2022)

    Ma, K.et al.Using gradient magnetic fields to control the size and uniformity of iron oxide nanoparticles for magnetic resonance imaging.ACS Appl. Nano Mater.5, 7410–7417 (2022)

    2022

  13. [23]

    Reports11, 20078 (2021)

    Kthiri, A.et al.Novel static magnetic field effects on green chemistry biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles in saccharomyces cerevisiae.Sci. Reports11, 20078 (2021)

    2021

  14. [24]

    & Tang, S

    Li, Z., Wang, Y ., Yan, X. & Tang, S. Effects of a magnetic field on the nucleation and growth of silver nanoparticles prepared via chemical reduction.J. Nanotechnol.2025, 8982025 (2025)

    2025

  15. [25]

    Ualkhanova, M.et al.The influence of magnetic field on synthesis of iron nanoparticles.J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. Appl.3, 1 (2019)

    2019

  16. [26]

    & Pan, C

    Luo, C., Fu, Q. & Pan, C. Strong magnetic field-assisted growth of carbon nanofibers and its microstructural transformation mechanism.Sci. reports5, 9062 (2015)

    2015

  17. [27]

    S.et al.In situ magnetic field-assisted low temperature atmospheric growth of gan nanowires via the vapor–liquid– solid mechanism.ACS Appl

    Kim, J. S.et al.In situ magnetic field-assisted low temperature atmospheric growth of gan nanowires via the vapor–liquid– solid mechanism.ACS Appl. Mater. & Interfaces6, 116–121 (2014)

    2014

  18. [28]

    & Pereira, M

    Tawalbeh, Y ., Ghazi, M. & Pereira, M. F. Controlling the size of nanoparticles using a magnetic field: a sphere packing approach.Sci. Reports15, 41725, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-29195-9 (2025)

    2025 doi

  19. [29]

    & Pereira, M

    Tawalbeh, Y . & Pereira, M. F. Magnetic field controlled nucleation and size selection of silver nanoparticles.Appl. Phys. B 132, 42, DOI: 10.1007/s00340-026-08656-7 (2026)

    2026 doi

  20. [30]

    Saidi, W. A. Density functional theory study of nucleation and growth of pt nanoparticles on mos2(001) surface.Cryst. Growth & Des.15, 642–652, DOI: 10.1021/cg5013395 (2015)

    2015 doi

  21. [31]

    & Hu, C.-W

    Wang, Y ., Xiang, B., Yang, H.-Q. & Hu, C.-W. Density functional theory study on the nucleation and growth of ptn clusters onγ-al2o3(001) surface.ACS Omega2, 3250–3259, DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.7b00342 (2017)

    2017 doi

  22. [32]

    & Sun, W

    Baek, W., Das, S., Tan, S., Gavini, V . & Sun, W. Quasicrystal stability and nucleation kinetics from density functional theory.Nat. Phys.21, 980–987, DOI: 10.1038/s41567-025-02925-6 (2025)

    2025 doi

  23. [33]

    H.The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities(Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1932)

    Van Vleck, J. H.The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities(Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1932). Relevant discussion: pp. 29, 89–94, 186–195. 34.Spetch, E. Packomania. http://www.packomania.com (2023). Accessed: 5 Aug 2025

    2023

  24. [35]

    16, 5751–5755, DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b02454 (2016)

    Lü, X.et al.Conducting interface in oxide homojunction: Understanding of superior properties in black tio2.Nano Lett. 16, 5751–5755, DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b02454 (2016)

    2016 doi

  25. [36]

    Energy Mater .3, 11516–11522, DOI: 10.1021/acsaem.0c01868 (2020)

    Kim, M.-G.et al.Crystalline/amorphous ni2p/ho2o3 core/shell nanoparticles for electrochemical reduction of co2 to acetone.ACS Appl. Energy Mater .3, 11516–11522, DOI: 10.1021/acsaem.0c01868 (2020)

    2020 doi

  26. [37]

    & Cappelli, C

    Giovannini, T. & Cappelli, C. Continuum vs. atomistic approaches to computational spectroscopy of solvated systems. Chem. Commun. (Camb.)59, 5644–5660 (2023). 38.Makkar, P. & Ghosh, N. N. A review on the use of dft for the prediction of the properties of nanomaterials.RSC Adv....

    2023 doi

  27. [39]

    & Frangis, N

    Maniotis, N. & Frangis, N. The connection between hill’s nanothermodynamics and tsallis non-extensive statistical mechanics: Extracting the thermodynamic properties of a nanosystem.Phys. E: Low-dimensional Syst. Nanostructures 172, 116285, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physe....

    2025

  28. [40]

    Advances in thermodynamic modelling of nanoparticles.Adv

    Guisbiers, G. Advances in thermodynamic modelling of nanoparticles.Adv. Physics: X4, 1668299, DOI: 10.1080/ 23746149.2019.1668299 (2019)

    2019

  29. [41]

    RSC advances9, 10030–10033 (2019)

    Hayakawa, M.et al.Effect of moderate magnetic fields on the surface tension of aqueous liquids: a reliable assessment. RSC advances9, 10030–10033 (2019). 42.Haynes, W. M.CRC handbook of chemistry and physics(CRC press, 2016)

    2019

  30. [43]

    Cornell, R. M. & Schwertmann, U.The iron oxides: structure, properties, reactions, occurrences and uses(John Wiley & Sons, 2003). 44.Pathria, R. K. & Beale, P. D.Statistical mechanics(Academic Press Inc. (London), London, England, 2021), 4 edn

    2003

  31. [45]

    Morvan, J.-M.The Steiner F ormula for Convex Subsets, 153–164 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008). 18/18

    2008

Pith tools

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