Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Pulsed laser synthesis of mesoporous metal chalcogenide thin films

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that pulsed laser deposition in an argon background grows mesoporous $\beta$-FeSe films on MgO that are epitaxial with the substrate—c-axis normal and in-plane lattice rotated 45°—because low-energy gas-phase clusters…

desk verdict Solid structural result — porous epitaxial FeSe with a clean 45° in-plane rotation — but the cluster soft-landing mechanism is not yet supported by the plume diagnostics. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17443 v1 pith:5DO72SGQ submitted 2025-08-24 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.plasm-ph

Dorien E. Carpenter , Zahra Nasiri , Nithesh R. Palagiri , Kamron L. Strickland , Sumner B. Harris , David B. Geohegan , Renato P. Camata This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.plasm-ph
keywords metalchalcogenideβ-FeSemesoporousthinfilmpulsedlaserdepositionclusterepitaxyorientedattachmentplumedynamicselectrocatalyst
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 way to grow porous crystalline films of the metal chalcogenide $\beta$-FeSe that are epitaxial with their MgO substrate even though they assemble from gas-phase clusters rather than individual atoms. KrF pulsed laser deposition in 100 mTorr argon produces a confined, three-component plasma plume whose slow interior delivers film-forming species at energies below 0.5 eV/atom. The resulting film is 15% porous with voids under 100 nm, yet X-ray diffraction shows a single crystallographic orientation: c-axis normal to MgO and in-plane $\beta$-FeSe[100] parallel to MgO[110]. If this cluster-based epitaxy is general, it gives a practical route to electrocatalyst films that combine high surface area with uniform exposure of specific crystal facets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the semi-confined ablation plume in argon: gated imaging and ion-probe time-of-flight show a three-component plume whose fast leading edge rebounds between the substrate heater and the target, colliding with slower interior species, while the flux that actually grows the film moves at ≤0.5 eV/atom. The growth mechanism is oriented attachment of these low-energy, Se-terminated clusters onto the MgO surface. Soft landing seats protruding Se rows into the (110)-oriented Mg corrugations of MgO, fixing the 45° in-plane registry; the roughly 20% mismatch between Se-row spacing and Mg depression spacing leaves crystallites slightly tilted, which explains the porous framework and the absence of higher-order diffraction peaks.

What would settle it

Repeat the ICCD imaging and ion-probe time-of-flight measurements with the substrate heater at 350°C and the real substrate in place, and measure the kinetic energy distribution of the species arriving at the film; if the dominant flux exceeds about 0.5 eV/atom, the soft-landing cluster mechanism cannot be responsible for the epitaxy. Alternatively, deposit the same cluster plume on an MgO surface whose (110) corrugations are absent or altered, for instance MgO(111) or a reconstructed surface; if the 45° in-plane orientation persists, the corrugation-alignment explanation is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that porous $\beta$-FeSe films grown by pulsed laser deposition in 100 mTorr argon are epitaxial with MgO despite being built from pre-formed clusters rather than atomic vapor. The tetragonal $\beta$-FeSe phase grows with (001) parallel to MgO(001), and in-plane the film is rotated 45° relative to the substrate, $\beta$-FeSe[100]∥[110]MgO, in contrast to the square-on-square orientation of vacuum-grown films. The authors attribute this to oriented attachment: Se-terminated crystallites formed in the gas phase land softly under kinetic energy ≤0.5 eV/atom, and their protruding Se rows settle into the (110)-oriented Mg corrugations of the unreconstructed MgO surface. Because growth proceeds by cluster accretion rather than atomic diffusion, the film stays porous and lacks higher-order Bragg reflections, but the interfacial corrugation match locks a single in-plane orientation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the plume measurements made with the substrate shield in place and the heater at room temperature describe the actual growth flux, even though deposition uses a substrate heater at 350°C; the heated substrate changes the gas temperature field, thermophoretic forces, and possibly the plume dynamics, so the inferred cluster energies and soft-landing story may not apply during real film growth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 100 mTorr argon, 350°C substrate temperature, 1.0 J/cm² fluence, and a 7.5 mm² spot, film growth is dominated by species with kinetic energy ≤0.5 eV/atom, and the film is mesoporous with 15% porosity and voids below 100 nm.
  • The porous film is epitaxial with a single in-plane orientation, β-FeSe[100]∥[110]MgO, a 45° rotation from the square-on-square orientation of vacuum-grown films.
  • Vacuum-grown films at the same temperature form a square-on-square orientation through an Fe-rich interfacial accommodation layer, so the 45° orientation in the porous film indicates a different growth mechanism, not simply a different growth temperature.
  • The low-energy cluster flux preserves the MgO substrate surface, giving a film/substrate interface roughness of 0.4 nm compared with 2.0 nm for vacuum growth.
  • Plume confinement and rebound dynamics can be tuned through background pressure, pulse repetition rate, and geometry, giving control over porosity, cluster incorporation, and crystallographic texture of chalcogenide electrocatalyst films.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the corrugation-alignment picture predicts that the in-plane orientation is controlled by the substrate surface geometry rather than by the film chemistry, so depositing the same cluster flux on a substrate with different surface row spacings or symmetry (for example a vicinal MgO surface or SrTiO₃) should change or split the in-plane registry, providing a design rule for face
  • Editorial extension: if the film-forming building blocks are pre-formed in the gas phase, the method may extend to metastable chalcogenide phases or to dopant profiles that are difficult to reach by atomic deposition, because the cluster composition and structure are set before landing.
  • Editorial extension: a direct test of the soft-landing story would be to measure the arrival-energy distribution and cluster mass spectrum at the substrate position during real growth at 350°C; if the dominant species are not sub-0.5 eV clusters, the proposed mechanism would need revision.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports pulsed-laser deposition of β-FeSe on MgO in a 100 mTorr Ar background and compares the resulting films with vacuum-grown films. Using gated ICCD imaging and ion-probe measurements, the authors identify three plume components, plume-front reflection from the substrate shield, and a later rebounded arrival, from which they infer that film growth is dominated by low-energy (≤0.5 eV/atom) clusters or very small nanoparticles. X-ray reflectivity and AFM indicate a mesoporous framework with 15% void fraction and voids below roughly 100 nm. XRD shows c-axis-oriented β-FeSe and, for the Ar-grown film, an in-plane orientation of β-FeSe[100]∥[110]MgO, which the authors attribute to soft landing of Se-terminated crystallites on MgO corrugations. The paper concludes that this provides a route to single-orientation porous electrocatalyst films.

Significance. If the mechanism and structural claims hold, the work demonstrates a new PLD route to mesoporous metal chalcogenide films with a single in-plane crystallographic orientation, which would be of genuine interest for electrocatalyst facet engineering. Strengths of the manuscript include the combination of plume diagnostics with standard structural characterization, the explicit comparison between Ar-background and vacuum growth, and the use of open-source fitting software for XRR. I also agree with the authors that the structural claims are not circular relative to the inferred mechanism: the porosity, epitaxy, and in-plane orientation are measured quantities. The principal gap is that the central mechanistic claim—cluster soft landing—is inferred indirectly and is tied to diagnostics acquired under conditions that differ from the actual growth conditions. The paper is clearly written and the experimental detail is generally sufficient to reproduce the growth, but the mechanistic conclusion needs either additional evidence or explicit reframing as a hypothesis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2; Fig. 1 caption; Section 3] The plume diagnostics that ground the ≤0.5 eV/atom and cluster-building-block picture were acquired with the substrate shield inserted, the heater receded, and both at room temperature, while films were grown at 350 °C with the shield retracted. The equivalence argued in Section 3 covers only the geometric plasma-exposed area of shield versus heater. It does not address the gas-temperature field: a heated substrate creates a vertical temperature gradient and thermophoretic forces, which the paper itself invokes (Refs. 34, 35) to exclude stagnant nanoparticles from the growing film, and it also changes mean free paths and plume thermalization. In addition, the ICCD/ion-probe data are single-shot, while growth uses 6,000 pulses at 5 Hz, so cumulative background heating may alter later-pulse plumes. The paper should either provide plume measurements or modeling at the actual growth conditions, or explicitly restrict the energetic and cluster-content claims to the cold-shield configuration and rephrase the growth mechanism as conditional.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 2, Table 1] The XRR fits are described as 'approximately describe the data' (Fig. 2 caption), but the manuscript gives no residual curves, goodness-of-fit metric, or parameter uncertainties for the fitted values in Table 1. The central structural claim of 15% porosity rests on a fitted void fraction in a three-layer model; without parameter correlation or uncertainty analysis, the reader cannot judge whether the porosity and interface-roughness values are uniquely determined. Please add residual plots, confidence intervals from the differential-evolution refinement, and a discussion of model non-uniqueness.
  3. [Section 3, Fig. 3(a)] The assignment of the porous film to the tetragonal β-FeSe phase rests on a single (0 0 1) Bragg reflection at 2θ = 16.17°, with (0 0 2)–(0 0 4) absent. A single low-angle reflection is insufficient to exclude other layered Fe–Se phases or a heavily disordered variant. A wider θ–2θ scan, additional reflections such as (1 0 1)/(1 1 2), or cross-sectional TEM would strengthen the phase and epitaxy claims. This is important because the 45° in-plane orientation is meaningful only if the film is actually β-FeSe.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 3(c)–(d); Section 4] The 45° in-plane orientation and the Se-row/MgO-corrugation soft-landing mechanism are the paper’s principal novelty, yet the mechanism is inferred indirectly: no gas-phase cluster size or composition measurement, no direct observation of the film/substrate interface, and no control experiments varying substrate temperature or surface termination are presented. The proposed interfacial registry is plausible, but an alternative explanation is that the 45° orientation arises simply from the absence of the Fe-rich interfacial accommodation layer under low-energy flux, rather than from crystallite soft landing. The abstract and conclusions currently present the soft-landing picture as the growth mechanism. Please either supply direct evidence (e.g., in-situ mass spectrometry, ex-situ high-resolution interface imaging, or deposition on a different substrate with different corrugation symmetry) or downgrade the mechanism to an explicitly labeled hypothesis throughout the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Footnote] The corresponding-author footnote contains a typo: 'Corresponsing author' should be 'Corresponding author'.
  2. [References] Reference 8 has a stray closing parenthesis in the DOI: 'https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00600)' should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2] The text 'Hellmanex III' and the German umlaut in 'Müllheim' appear garbled in the manuscript; please check character encoding.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 2] The statement about pore size below 100 nm is based on AFM surface morphology; the manuscript should clarify that no bulk pore-size distribution (e.g., BET or porosimetry) was measured.
  5. [Section 3, Fig. 3(c)] The claim that the porous film is 'fully 45-degree oriented' should be quantified from the φ-scan peak intensities, and the absence of the square-on-square orientation should be reported explicitly rather than only visually.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's structural claims are measured and the growth mechanism is an interpretive hypothesis, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimentally measured or fitted to standard characterization models, and the proposed growth mechanism is an interpretation of those measurements rather than a result derived from an assumption that already contains it. The XRR porosity is a model parameter fitted to reflectivity data using Parratt's recursive formula and GenX 3; this is standard inverse characterization, not a prediction forced by a prior commitment to mesoporosity. The epitaxial orientation claims rest on XRD theta-2theta and phi scans, with the 45-degree in-plane orientation directly observed. The low-energy cluster-dominated flux is inferred from ICCD and ion-probe time-of-flight data, not assumed as an input. The soft-landing and Se-row alignment explanation is a post-hoc mechanistic hypothesis that is consistent with the measured orientation, but it is not used to generate the orientation claim. Although some references cited in the plume-dynamics discussion (notably Refs. 34-37) include prior work by co-authors, the paper's own diagnostics independently document the plume splitting, reflection, and late arrivals; the citations provide interpretive context and supporting phenomena rather than serving as the sole load-bearing justification. The use of a cold shield during plume diagnostics while growth used a hot substrate is a legitimate experimental-validity concern, but that is a question of whether the measured flux represents the deposition flux, not circularity: the measured values are not defined in terms of the conclusion. No equation or fitted parameter is shown to reduce to another claim by construction, and no self-citation chain is invoked to forbid alternative mechanisms. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to its main experimental findings.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanistic narrative relies on five domain assumptions, most importantly that room-temperature shield-based plume diagnostics represent the 350 C growth configuration and that film growth is dominated by gas-phase clusters; none are directly verified by the experiments. The porosity and structure claims also depend on the adequacy of the three-layer XRR model.

free parameters (8)
  • Void fraction in XRR three-layer model = 15%
    Fitted by GenX 3 differential evolution to match the XRR pattern; directly supports the central porosity claim.
  • Ar-film density = 4.76 g/cm3
    Derived from fitted FeSe/void mixture; used to infer 15% porosity.
  • Ar-film thickness = 21 nm
    Fitted XRR parameter; used to compute growth rate and compare with vacuum film.
  • Top layer roughness (Ar film) = 1.9 nm
    Fitted XRR parameter; supports mesoporous morphology claim.
  • Interface roughness (Ar film) = 0.4 nm
    Fitted XRR parameter; used to argue low-energy growth preserves MgO surface.
  • Drag coefficient alpha for plume feature I = 0.765 cm^-1
    Fitted to ICCD R-t data using quadratic drag model; used to extrapolate arrival time and infer speeds of the leading plume component.
  • Drag coefficient alpha for plume feature II = 1.17 cm^-1
    Fitted to ICCD R-t data; used to infer deceleration and interaction with reflected front.
  • Drag coefficient alpha for plume feature III = 2.09 cm^-1
    Fitted to ICCD R-t data (0-2.4 us) as reported in SI; used to estimate late arrival and support cluster-formation environment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Plume behavior observed with a room-temperature shield and receded heater is representative of deposition with the substrate heater at 350 C, including plume reflection and the energy of species arriving at the substrate.
    The paper states the same reflection effect is expected when the shield is replaced by the substrate heater, without accounting for the elevated temperature's effect on gas density gradients and thermophoretic forces.
  • domain assumption The film-forming species are molecular clusters or very small nanoparticles that form in the gas phase with kinetic energy <=0.5 eV/atom.
    Inferred from ICCD/probe velocities of slow plume components; no in-situ detection or sizing of building blocks is provided.
  • domain assumption Gas-phase FeSe crystallites are Se-terminated, as inferred from STM and DFT studies of vacuum-exposed FeSe surfaces.
    Used to argue protruding Se rows settle into MgO corrugations; the surface termination of free gas-phase clusters is not directly measured.
  • domain assumption The MgO(001) surface is unreconstructed with corrugations along (110) directions.
    Taken from refs 45-46; underpins the proposed alignment of Se rows with Mg atom rows.
  • domain assumption The three-layer Parratt/GenX model with a simple air/film/substrate geometry is an adequate representation of the porous film for XRR analysis.
    Fits 'approximately' describe the data; porosity and roughness values depend on this model choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pulsed laser synthesis of mesoporous metal chalcogenide thin films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DO72SGQ

@misc{pith2026250817443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pulsed laser synthesis of mesoporous metal chalcogenide thin films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DO72SGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17443}
}
abstract

Mesoporous films of the metal chalcogenide $\beta$-FeSe were grown on MgO substrates by KrF pulsed laser deposition (PLD) in an argon background. At 100 mTorr, gated intensified charge-coupled device imaging and ion probe measurements showed that the plasma plume responsible for crystal growth initially comprised three components, with distinct expansion velocities. Plume interactions with the substrate heater and ablation target gave rise to complex dynamics, including collisions between the charged leading edge -- rebounding between the substrate and the target -- and slower-moving species in the plume interior. Film growth was dominated by species with kinetic energies $\le$0.5 eV/atom. X-ray reflectivity and atomic force microscopy revealed that films grown in this environment -- with a substrate temperature of 350$^\circ$C, a laser fluence of 1.0 J cm$^{-2}$, and a 7.5 mm$^2$ spot area -- formed a porous framework with 15% porosity and pore sizes below 100 nm. X-ray diffraction indicated that the porous films were epitaxial with respect to the substrate and likely grew by oriented-attachment of gas-phase molecular clusters or very small nanoparticles, in contrast to the conventional epitaxy of vacuum films from atomic constituents. The in-plane orientation of the mesoporous films was $\beta$-FeSe[100]$\parallel$[110]MgO, attributed to the soft landing of pre-formed crystallites on the MgO substrates, where protruding Se rows of $\beta$-FeSe aligned with corrugations of the MgO surface. This work implies that growth of candidate electrocatalyst materials by PLD in inert gas background may allow mesoporous frameworks with a single crystallographic orientation that expose specific crystal facets for electrochemical reactions and active site engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.17443 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gated ICCD images of the visible plume following single-shot ablation of FeSe, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray reflectivity scans (open circles) of films grown in (a) 100 mTorr Ar and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. XRD θ-2θ scans of films grown in (a) 100 mTorr Ar and (b) vacuum, showing reflections corresponding to c-axis oriented β-FeSe. High order reflections are absent in the Ar background film, implying lower long-range crystal coherence. XRD ϕ scans of the β-FeSe (1 0 3) reflection for both films (c,d) display 4-fold symmetry, indicating in-plane epitaxy with respect to MgO. The (c) 100 mTorr film is oriented such that β… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Zhao, J. Wang, Z. Chen, J. Ju, X. Han, Y. Deng, Metal chalcogenides: An emerging material for electrocatalysis, APL Materials 9 (5) (2021) 15 050902, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0049772

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0049772 2021

  2. [2]

    K. C. Majhi, M. Yadav, Transition metal-based chalcogenides as electro- catalysts for overall water splitting, ACS Engineering Au 3 (5) (2023) 278–284, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.3c00014

    work page doi:10.1021/acsengineeringau.3c00014 2023

  3. [3]

    Woods-Robinson, Y

    R. Woods-Robinson, Y. Han, H. Zhang, T. Ablekim, I. Khan, K. A. Persson, A. Zakutayev, Wide band gap chalcogenide semiconductors, Chemical Reviews 120 (9) (2020) 4007–4055, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00600)

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00600 2020

  4. [4]

    J. Zhou, C. Zhu, Y. Zhou, J. Dong, P. Li, Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y.-C. Lin, J. Shi, R. Zhang, Y. Zheng, H. Yu, B. Tang, F. Liu, L. Wang, L. Liu, G.- B. Liu, W. Hu, Y. Gao, H. Yang, W. Gao, L. Lu, Y. Wang, K. Suenaga, G. Liu, F. Ding, Y. Yao, Z. Liu, Composition and phase engineering of metal chalcogenides and phosphorous chalcogenides, Nature Materials 22 (4)...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41563-022-01291-5 2023

  5. [5]

    A. Giri, G. Park, U. Jeong, Layer-structured anisotropic metal chalcogenides: Recent advances in synthesis, modulation, and applications, Chemical Reviews 123 (7) (2023) 3329–3442, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00455

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00455 2023

  6. [6]

    Fabbri, M

    E. Fabbri, M. Nachtegaal, T. Binninger, X. Cheng, B.-J. Kim, J. Durst, F. Bozza, T. Graule, R. Sch¨ aublin, L. Wiles, M. Pertoso, N. Danilovic, K. E. Ayers, T. J. Schmidt, Dynamic surface self-reconstruction is the key of highly active perovskite nano-electrocatalysts for water splitting, Na- ture Materials 16 (9) (2017) 925–931, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4938

    work page doi:10.1038/nmat4938 2017

  7. [7]

    Y. Wang, X. Li, M. Zhang, Y. Zhou, D. Rao, C. Zhong, J. Zhang, X. Han, W. Hu, Y. Zhang, K. Zaghib, Y. Wang, Y. Deng, Lattice-strain engineer- ing of homogeneous nis0.5se0.5 core–shell nanostructure as a highly effi- cient and robust electrocatalyst for overall water splitting, Advanced Ma- terials 32 (40) (2020) 2000231, https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202000231

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.202000231 2020

  8. [8]

    T. D. C. Ha, H. Lee, I. Vamvasakis, G. S. Armatas, Y. Oh, M.-G. Kim, Recent developments in porous metal chalcogenides for environmen- tal remediation and sustainable energy, EcoMat 5 (12) (2023) e12419, https://doi.org/10.1002/eom2.12419. 16

    work page doi:10.1002/eom2.12419 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Sun, F. Alimohammadi, D. Zhang, G. Guo, Enabling colloidal synthesis of edge-oriented mos2 with expanded interlayer spacing for enhanced her catalysis, Nano Letters 17 (3) (2017) 1963–1969, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b05346

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    De Silva, J

    U. De Silva, J. Masud, N. Zhang, Y. Hong, W. P. Liyanage, M. A. Zaeem, M. Nath, Nickel telluride as a bifunctional electrocatalyst for efficient water splitting in alkaline medium, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 6 (17) (2018) 7608–7622, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8TA01760C

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Panda, P

    C. Panda, P. W. Menezes, C. Walter, S. Yao, M. E. Miehlich, V. Gutkin, K. Meyer, M. Driess, From a molecular 2fe-2se precur- sor to a highly efficient iron diselenide electrocatalyst for overall water splitting, Angewandte Chemie 129 (35) (2017) 10642–10646, https://doi.org/10...

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    H. Lu, Y. Zhang, Y. Huang, C. Zhang, T. Liu, Reaction packaging cose2 nanoparticles in n-doped carbon polyhedra with bifunctionality for overall water splitting, ACS applied materials & interfaces 11 (3) (2018) 3372–3381, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.8b20184

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    H. Zhao, Y. Yang, X. Dai, H. Qiao, J. Yong, X. Luan, L. Yu, C. Luan, Y. Wang, X. Zhang, Nico-dh nanodots anchored on amorphous nico-sulfide sheets as efficient electrocatalysts for oxy- gen evolution reaction, Electrochimica Acta 295 (2019) 1085–1092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j...

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    K. Peng, J. Zhou, H. Gao, J. Wang, H. Wang, L. Su, P. Wan, Emerg- ing one-/two-dimensional heteronanostructure integrating sic nanowires with mos2 nanosheets for efficient electrocatalytic hydrogen evolu- tion, ACS applied materials & interfaces 12 (17) (2020) 19519–19529, htt...

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    X. Luo, P. Ji, P. Wang, R. Cheng, D. Chen, C. Lin, J. Zhang, J. He, Z. Shi, N. Li, et al., Interface engineering of hierarchical branched mo- doped ni3s2/nixpy hollow heterostructure nanorods for efficient overall water splitting, Advanced Energy Materials 10 (17) (2020) 19038...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    H. Li, H. Xie, X. Wang, E. Liu, J. Kang, C. Shi, J. Sha, L. Ma, (fese2 + cose2) nanoparticles anchored on 3d porous ultrathin carbon nanosheets for high-activity oxygen evolution reaction, ACS Applied Nano Materials 6 (11) (2023) 9598–9607, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.3c01262

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    R. Miao, B. Dutta, S. Sahoo, J. He, W. Zhong, S. A. Cetegen, T. Jiang, S. P. Alpay, S. L. Suib, Mesoporous iron sulfide for highly efficient electro- catalytic hydrogen evolution, Journal of the American Chemical Society 139 (39) (2017) 13604–13607, https://doi.org/10.1021/jac...

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    L. T. Tufa, B. B. Gicha, H. Wu, J. Lee, Fe-based mesoporous nanostruc- tures for electrochemical conversion and storage of energy, Batteries and Supercaps 4 (3) (2021) 429–444, https://doi.org/10.1002/batt.202000228

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Jensen, Growth of nanostructures by cluster deposition: Exper- iments and simple models, Rev

    P. Jensen, Growth of nanostructures by cluster deposition: Exper- iments and simple models, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 (1999) 1695–1735, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1695

    1999 doi

  12. [20]

    B. N. Nair, T. Suzuki, Y. Yoshino, S. Gopalakrishnan, T. Sugawara, S.-I. Nakao, H. Taguchi, An oriented nanoporous membrane prepared by pulsed laser deposition, Advanced Materials 17 (9) (2005) 1136–1140, https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200401294

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    Di Fonzo, A

    F. Di Fonzo, A. Bailini, V. Russo, A. Baserga, D. Cattaneo, M. Beghi, P. Ossi, C. S. Casari, A. L. Bassi, C. E. Bottani, Synthesis and characteri- zation of tungsten and tungsten oxide nanostructured films, Catalysis To- day 116 (1) (2006) 69–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catt...

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    S. Shin, H. S. Han, J. S. Kim, I. J. Park, M. H. Lee, K. S. Hong, I. S. Cho, A tree-like nanoporous wo 3 photoanode with en- hanced charge transport efficiency for photoelectrochemical water oxi- dation, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 3 (24) (2015) 12920–12926, https://doi.o...

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Sauvage, F

    F. Sauvage, F. Di Fonzo, A. Li Bassi, C. S. Casari, V. Russo, G. Divitini, C. Ducati, C. E. Bottani, P. Comte, M. Graetzel, Hierarchical tio2 photoanode for dye-sensitized solar cells, Nano letters 10 (7) (2010) 2562–2567, https://doi.org/10.1021/nl101198b

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    J. H. Noh, J. H. Park, H. S. Han, D. H. Kim, B. S. Han, S. Lee, J. Y. Kim, H. S. Jung, K. S. Hong, Aligned photoelectrodes with large surface area 18 prepared by pulsed laser deposition, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 116 (14) (2012) 8102–8110, https://doi.org/10.1021/jp211233s

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Maffini, D

    A. Maffini, D. Orecchia, A. Pazzaglia, M. Zavelani-Rossi, M. Passoni, Pulsed laser deposition of carbon nanofoam, Applied Surface Science 599 (2022) 153859, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2022.153859

    2022

  18. [26]

    Z. Feng, J. Yuan, G. He, W. Hu, Z. Lin, D. Li, X. Jiang, Y. Huang, S. Ni, J. Li, et al., Tunable critical temperature for superconductivity in fese thin films by pulsed laser deposition, Scientific reports 8 (1) (2018) 4039, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22291-z

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    S. B. Harris, R. P. Camata, Double epitaxy of tetragonal and hexagonal phases in the fese system, Journal of Crystal Growth 514 (2019) 54–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2019.01.031

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    S. B. Harris, J. H. Paiste, T. J. Holdsworth, R. R. Arslanbekov, R. P. Camata, Laser-generated plasmas in length scales relevant for thin film growth and processing: simulation and experiment, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 53 (1) (2019) 015203, https://doi.org/10.1088/...

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment, Com- puting in Science and Engineering 9 (3) (2007) 90–95, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    L. G. Parratt, Surface studies of solids by total reflection of x-rays, Phys- ical Review 95 (1954) 359–369, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.95.359

    1954 doi

  23. [31]

    Glavic, M

    A. Glavic, M. Bj¨ orck, Genx 3: The latest generation of an estab- lished tool, Journal of Applied Crystallography 55 (2022) 1063–1071, https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576722006653

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    R. Wood, J. Leboeuf, D. Geohegan, A. Puretzky, K. Chen, Dynamics of plume propagation and splitting during pulsed-laser ablation of si in he and ar, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 58 (3) (1998) 1533–1543, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.58.1533

    1998 doi

  25. [33]

    R. F. Wood, J. N. Leboeuf, K. R. Chen, D. B. Geohegan, A. A. Puretzky, Dynamics of plume propagation, splitting, and nanoparticle formation 19 during pulsed-laser ablation, Applied Surface Science 127–129 (1998) 151–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-4332(97)00625-9

    1998 doi

  26. [34]

    D. B. Geohegan, A. A. Puretzky, D. J. Rader, Gas-phase nanopar- ticle formation and transport during pulsed laser deposition of y1ba2cu3o7d, Applied Physics Letters 74 (25) (1999) 3788–3790, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.124180

    1999 doi

  27. [35]

    D. B. Geohegan, A. A. Puretzky, G. Duscher, S. J. Penny- cook, Time-resolved imaging of gas phase nanoparticle synthesis by laser ablation, Applied Physics Letters 72 (1998) 2987–2989, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.121516

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    Mahjouri-Samani, M

    M. Mahjouri-Samani, M. Tian, A. A. Puretzky, M. Chi, K. Wang, G. Duscher, C. M. Rouleau, G. Eres, M. Yoon, J. Lasseter, K. Xiao, D. B. Geohegan, Nonequilibrium synthesis of tio2 nanopar- ticle ”building blocks” for crystal growth by sequential attachment in pulsed laser deposi...

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Y.-C. Lin, C. Liu, Y. Yu, E. Zarkadoula, M. Yoon, A. A. Puretzky, L. Liang, X. Kong, Y. Gu, A. Strasser, H. M. I. Meyer, M. Lorenz, M. F. Chisholm, I. N. Ivanov, C. M. Rouleau, G. Duscher, K. Xiao, D. B. Geohegan, Low energy implantation into transition-metal dichalcogenide mo...

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Birkholz, Thin Film Analysis by X-ray Scattering, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co

    M. Birkholz, Thin Film Analysis by X-ray Scattering, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, 2006

    2006

  31. [39]

    T. M. McQueen, Q. Huang, V. Ksenofontov, C. Felser, Q. Xu, H. Zand- bergen, Y. S. Hor, J. Allred, A. J. Williams, D. Qu, et al., Extreme sensitivity of superconductivity to stoichiometry in fe 1+ δ se, Physi- cal Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 79 (1) (2009) 01...

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    S. Hota, K. Mohanta, Investigation of pressure impact on physical char- acteristics of fese chalcogenide superconductor: Insights from first prin- ciples calculation, Computational Materials Science 234 (2024) 112798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2024.112798. 20

    2024

  33. [41]

    Hiramatsu, K

    H. Hiramatsu, K. Hanzawa, T. Kamiya, H. Hosono, Particulate gen- eration on surface of iron selenide films by air exposure, Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 32 (10) (2019) 3047–3055, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-019-5020-9

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Obata, M

    Y. Obata, M. Sato, Y. Kondo, Y. Yamaguchi, I. A. Karateev, I. Pavlov, A. L. Vasiliev, S. Haindl, Chemical composition con- trol at the substrate interface as the key for fese thin-film growth, ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 13 (44) (2021) 53162–53170, https://doi.org/10....

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Hsu, J.-Y

    F.-C. Hsu, J.-Y. Luo, K.-W. Yeh, T.-K. Chen, T.-W. Huang, P. Wu, Y.-C. Lee, Y.-L. Huang, Y.-Y. Chu, D.-C. Yan, M.-K. Wu, Superconductivity in the pbo-type structure fese, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (2008) 14262–14264, ht...

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    M. Wu, F. Hsu, K. Yeh, T. Huang, J. Luo, M. Wang, H. Chang, T. Chen, S. Rao, B. Mok, C. Chen, Y. Huang, C. Ke, P. Wu, A. Chang, C. Wu, T. Perng, The development of the superconducting pbo-type beta-fese and related compounds, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications 4...

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    Urano, T

    T. Urano, T. Kanaji, M. Kaburagi, Surface structure of mgo(001) surface studied by leed, Surface Science 134 (1) (1983) 109–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-6028(83)90314-X

    1983 doi

  38. [46]

    Barth, C

    C. Barth, C. R. Henry, Atomic resolution imaging of the (001) surface of uhv cleaved mgo by dynamic scanning force microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 196102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.196102

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    Liu, Z.-Y

    K. Liu, Z.-Y. Lu, T. Xiang, Atomic and electronic structures of fese mono- layer and bilayer thin films on srtio 3 (001): First-principles study, Phys. Rev. B 85 (2012) 235123, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.235123

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    Song, Y.-L

    C.-L. Song, Y.-L. Wang, Y.-P. Jiang, L. Wang, K. He, X. Chen, J. E. Hoffman, X.-C. Ma, Q.-K. Xue, Suppression of superconductiv- ity by twin boundaries in fese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 137004, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.137004. 21

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    Huang, T

    D. Huang, T. A. Webb, C.-L. Song, C.-Z. Chang, J. S. Moodera, E. Kaxi- ras, J. E. Hoffman, Dumbbell defects in fese films: A scanning tunneling microscopy and first-principles investigation, Nano Letters 16 (7) (2016) 4224–4229, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b01163

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Metev, Process characteristics and film properties in pulsed laser depo- sition, in: D

    S. Metev, Process characteristics and film properties in pulsed laser depo- sition, in: D. B. Chrisey, G. K. Hubler (Eds.), Pulsed Laser Deposition of Thin Films, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994, pp. 255–264. 22 (a) (b) Vacuum 1 cm (d) 1 2 3 4 5 I 1 cm 0.1 1 10 0.01 16500 16...

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.