Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 32 references

Improvement of superconducting properties by chemical pressure effect in Eu-doped La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Europium substitution for lanthanum raises a layered bismuth-sulfide superconductor's transition temperature from 2.5 K to 4.0 K.

desk verdict A solid, incremental doping study that pushes Tc from 2.5 to 4 K; the chemical-pressure interpretation is plausible but underverified because Eu site occupancy is never directly established. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09311 v1 pith:6JU7JI4A submitted 2019-08-25 cond-mat.supr-con

Rajveer Jha , Yosuke Goto , Ryuji Higashinaka , Akira Miura , C. Moriyoshi , Yoshihiro Kuroiwa , Yoshikazu Mizuguchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords BiS2-basedsuperconductorslayeredsuperconductorchemicalpressureeuropiumsubstitutionsuperconductingphasediagramoxychalcogenideuppercriticalfieldshieldingvolumefraction
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 substituting europium for lanthanum improves superconductivity in the layered oxychalcogenide $\mathrm{La}_{2-x}\mathrm{Eu}_{x}\mathrm{O}_{2}\mathrm{Bi}_{3}\mathrm{Ag}_{0.6}\mathrm{Sn}_{0.4}\mathrm{S}_{6}$ by squeezing the crystal in the a-b plane. It reports that the zero-resistance transition temperature rises from 2.5 K at $x=0$ to 4.0 K at $x=0.4$, and that the $x=0.4$ sample shows bulk diamagnetism with a shielding volume fraction above 75%. The europium doping shrinks the in-plane lattice constant $a$ while leaving $c$ almost unchanged, which the paper reads as uniaxial chemical pressure acting on the BiS$_2$-based conducting layers. The same composition also has the highest estimated upper critical field, about 3.45 T. The result matters because in-plane chemical pressure is one of the few levers known to raise $T_c$ in this family of layered bismuth-sulfide superconductors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is chemical pressure, defined here as in-plane lattice compression produced when a smaller ion replaces lanthanum. The crystal structure is the tetragonal P4/nmm stacking of fluorite-type [La$_2$O$_2$] blocking layers and [M$_4$S$_6$] superconducting layers, and europium sits in the blocking layer and compresses the $a$-$b$ plane. The paper establishes the compression through refined lattice parameters from laboratory and synchrotron X-ray diffraction, connects it to superconductivity through a $T_c$ versus $x$ phase diagram whose dome peaks at $x=0.4$, and shows that the semiconducting upturn in normal-state resistivity is suppressed as the pressure builds. Magnetic-susceptibility fits provide the europium valence estimate, and resistivity-in-field measurements feed the one-band upper-critical-field extrapolation used to obtain $B_{c2}(0)$.

What would settle it

A structural refinement that fixes the europium occupancy in the main phase and compares the main-phase lattice constants with the measured europium content would settle the claim; if the $a$-axis stops shrinking near $x=0.4$ while the nominal europium content keeps rising, the superconducting dome is tracking solubility, not chemical pressure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that rare-earth substitution on the lanthanum site acts as an effective chemical-pressure tuning knob for $\mathrm{La}_{2-x}\mathrm{Eu}_{x}\mathrm{O}_{2}\mathrm{Bi}_{3}\mathrm{Ag}_{0.6}\mathrm{Sn}_{0.4}\mathrm{S}_{6}$. At $x=0.4$ the compound reaches a zero-resistance $T_c$ of 4.0 K, a bulk superconducting transition with more than 75% shielding fraction, and an estimated $B_{c2}(0)$ of about 3.45 T from a one-band upper-critical-field extrapolation. The lattice parameter $a$ contracts from about 4.064 Å at $x=0$ to 4.051 Å at $x=0.4$, while $c$ contracts only slightly, indicating that the pressure is concentrated in the a-b plane. Beyond $x=0.4$ the transition temperature and shielding fraction decline, and the paper attributes this to the europium solubility limit near $x\sim0.4$ plus the growth of impurity phases. Magnetic-susceptibility fits yield effective moments far below the value for Eu$^{2+}$, which the paper takes as evidence that europium is close to trivalent, so the substitution is primarily a structural compression rather than a magnetic or carrier-doping effect.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on europium actually entering the lanthanum positions of the main crystal structure, so the measured shrinking of the $a$-axis is a true chemical-pressure effect rather than a side effect of impurity phases; the paper does not directly measure where the europium sits, and the $x=0.4$ sample contains about 5% $\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{S}_3$ and 4.4% $\mathrm{Eu}_2\mathrm{Sn}_2\mathrm{O}_7$ impurities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the chemical-pressure picture is right, substituting a smaller rare earth into the lanthanum site offers a reliable route to raise $T_c$ in this family, reaching 4.0 K at $x=0.4$.
  • The dome-shaped phase diagram means the benefit is bounded by europium solubility near $x\approx0.4$; pushing nominal doping higher adds impurity phases and lowers the superconducting volume fraction.
  • Because the Seebeck coefficient does not change up to $x=0.4$, the $T_c$ enhancement is not a simple carrier-concentration effect, reinforcing the structural interpretation.
  • The suppression of the semiconducting normal-state resistivity with increasing europium content links the improved superconductivity to the reduction of in-plane disorder, the same route the paper invokes for other BiS$_2$-based compounds.
  • The paper notes that lanthanum-site substitution by other lanthanides, such as neodymium or praseodymium, can be viewed as the same chemical-pressure mechanism and may deserve the same measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to measure the same compounds under applied hydrostatic pressure: if the europium effect is truly chemical pressure, physical pressure should move $T_c$ along the same trajectory and could push beyond the dome's 4 K ceiling.
  • Because energy-dispersive X-ray analysis shows the actual europium content lagging the nominal value, a composition-rescaled phase diagram might show that the intrinsic doping dependence is steeper or shifted from the nominal-$x$ dome reported here.
  • The small negative magnetic-ordering temperatures implied by the susceptibility fits suggest a very dilute magnetic component coexists with the superconducting phase; low-temperature magnetization or specific-heat measurements below 2 K could look for the short-range correlations this implies.
  • A direct measurement of where europium sits, such as a site-occupancy refinement or element-specific absorption spectroscopy, would separate the chemical-pressure effect from impurity-phase contributions without relying on the inferred trivalent state.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the synthesis and characterization of Eu-substituted La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x = 0–0.6), aiming to improve superconductivity through chemical pressure. The authors observe lattice contraction, most strongly in the a-axis, and a maximum zero-resistance Tc of 4.0 K for x = 0.4, with a shielding volume fraction above 75% in magnetization, compared with Tc = 2.5 K for x = 0. They attribute the Tc enhancement to in-plane chemical pressure from Eu substitution on the La site. Upper critical fields estimated by the WHH method reach 3.45 T for x = 0.4. The paper also presents Curie–Weiss analysis of the magnetic susceptibility, Seebeck coefficients, and a Tc–x phase diagram.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful demonstration that chemical-pressure tuning can raise Tc in the La2O2M4S6-type layered oxychalcogenide family, extending the BiS2-based superconductor platform. The observation of bulk superconductivity at 4 K with a large shielding fraction is a concrete, falsifiable result that will be of interest to the community working on BiS2-based and related layered superconductors. The paper also gives a clear structural rationale (uniaxial a-axis compression) and compares multiple compositions systematically. However, the significance is tempered by the lack of direct evidence for Eu incorporation on the La site, which is the crux of the proposed mechanism, and by several internal inconsistencies in the magnetic analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 1(d), Fig. 2, and Fig. 1(e)] The central claim that the Tc enhancement is caused by in-plane chemical pressure from Eu substituting at the La site is not directly supported: the Rietveld refinements treat the La site as fully occupied by La and do not refine Eu occupancy, and EDX provides only the total Eu content in the multiphase pellet. For x = 0.4, the multi-phase synchrotron refinement includes 5% Bi2S3 and 4.4% Eu2Sn2O7, so a substantial fraction of the nominal Eu is demonstrably outside the main phase. The observed a-axis contraction could therefore also arise from Sn deficiency in the main phase caused by Eu2Sn2O7 formation or from other stoichiometry drift. The authors should refine Eu occupancy on the La site (or provide element-specific evidence such as XANES or a compositional analysis of the main phase) to establish that the lattice compression is actually due to Eu in the P4/nmm phase.
  2. [Table 1 vs. Fig. 4(d) and text in Section 3 (Curie–Weiss analysis)] The Curie–Weiss temperatures are inconsistent: Table 1 lists positive TCW values (+0.398, +0.625, +0.810 K) for x = 0.1–0.3, while Fig. 4(d) and the text report negative values (−0.4, −0.6, −0.8, ... K) for the same compositions. The text concludes that negative TCW indicates weak antiferromagnetic interaction for all x = 0.1–0.6, which is contradicted by the positive values in the table for the lower concentrations. This sign discrepancy must be resolved, and the effective moments and TCW should be given with uncertainties from the fits.
  3. [Section 3 (magnetization) and Fig. 3(h)] The shielding volume fraction, a load-bearing quantity for the 'bulk superconductivity' claim, is reported without details of its calculation. No demagnetization correction, sample-mass normalization, or density assumptions are stated, and no error bars are provided for the volume fractions or for the Tc values extracted from χ(T) and ρ(T). Since the comparison across x is the basis of the phase diagram and the central 'improvement' claim, the authors should specify the analysis procedure and provide uncertainties.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 8] For x = 0.5 and 0.6, the magnetic Tc (4.1 K) is slightly higher than for x = 0.4, while the resistive Tc and shielding fraction decrease. The explanation that this is due to 'small particles with high Eu concentration' is speculative and not supported by any microstructure or composition mapping data. This discrepancy should either be substantiated or acknowledged as an unresolved feature that limits the precision of the stated optimal composition, x = 0.4.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Introduction and Conclusion] The phrase 'a ticker conducting layer' should be 'a thicker conducting layer'.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 1 caption and text] The text refers to Fig. 1(g) for the EDX results, but the caption labels this panel as Fig. 1(e); the figure and text labels should be reconciled.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) contains a typographical error in the expression for the Curie constant: the effective moment and Bohr magneton symbols are malformed. The correct form should be C = N_a μ_eff^2 μ_B^2 / (3 k_B).
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 6 caption and text] The text says 'The upper critical field (Bc2) versus temperature phase diagrams are shown in Fig. 6(f)', but the actual combined plot appears to be Fig. 6(h); the cross-reference is incorrect.
  5. [Section 3, Curie–Weiss section] The sentence 'The obtained values from the fitting of the Curie–Weiss law are summarized in Table 1' is followed by a claim about the trend in Fig. 4(c,d); it should be clarified whether the table or the figure is authoritative, especially given the sign disagreement noted in the major comments.
  6. [Section 3, Seebeck and Fig. 7] The Seebeck coefficient data are shown without error bars or measurement-temperature details; a sentence describing the measurement protocol and estimated uncertainty would improve reproducibility.
  7. [Conclusion] The statement that the solubility limit is '~20% (x~0.4)' is confusing because x = 0.4 corresponds to 20% Eu substitution on the La site; the text should be worded to avoid implying a 20% solubility of the whole compound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all load-bearing quantities (Tc, lattice constants, Bc2) are direct measurements, and the self-cited baselines are prior empirical values rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: Tc is read off resistivity and susceptibility data; lattice parameters come from Rietveld refinement; Bc2(0) is a standard WHH extrapolation from measured Tc(B) curves. None of these quantities is defined in terms of another claimed result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citations are to prior reports establishing the parent Tc (0.5 K, ref. [23]) and Sn-doped Tc (2.5 K, ref. [24]) as baselines, and to the in-plane chemical-pressure concept (refs. [25-27]); these are prior measurements and hypotheses, not parameters fitted here, so the comparison "Tc = 4.0 K for x = 0.4 vs. 2.5 K for x = 0" is a genuine experimental comparison rather than a construction. The chemical-pressure attribution is an interpretation of the measured a-axis contraction and Tc trend, not a derivation; the unrefined Eu site occupancy and impurity phases raise a correctness/underdetermination concern (the paper itself notes x_EDX below nominal and 5% Bi2S3/4.4% Eu2Sn2O7 for x = 0.4), and Table 1's positive TCW values for x = 0.1-0.3 contradict the text's negative values, but these are experimental or reporting issues, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The superconducting claim is not derived from a model, so there is no parameter fitted to reproduce Tc. The listed free parameters are secondary characterization fits. The main unstated costs are the imported chemical-pressure mechanism, the assumed Eu-on-La site occupancy, and the assumption that impurities do not cause the observed signals.

free parameters (3)
  • Curie-Weiss effective moment mu_eff = 0.49 to 0.85 mu_B/Eu for x=0.1 to 0.6
    Fitted to susceptibility data between 5 and 70 K using Eq. (1); used to argue that Eu is mostly Eu3+, which supports the chemical-pressure substitution picture.
  • Curie-Weiss temperature TCW = Text reports -0.4 to -1.3 K; Table 1 lists +0.398 to -1.145 K
    Fitted in the same Curie-Weiss analysis; intended to show weak antiferromagnetic interactions, but the sign inconsistency between table and text weakens its use.
  • WHH extrapolated upper critical field Bc2(0) = 1.8, 1.87, 2.43, 2.75, 3.45, 2.14, 1.87 T for x=0 to 0.6
    Obtained by fitting Bc2(T) data with the one-band WHH formula from a 90% resistivity-drop criterion; used to characterize the best compound, secondary to the Tc claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption In-plane chemical pressure suppresses in-plane structural disorder due to Bi lone pairs and thereby raises Tc in BiS2 systems.
    Invoked in the Introduction and again in the discussion of Fig. 1(d) and Fig. 5; this mechanism is imported from prior literature [25-27] and is not directly measured here.
  • domain assumption Eu substitutes for La on the 2c site of the P4/nmm structure.
    The Rietveld model assumes Eu on the La site, but no site-occupancy refinement or direct local probe is shown; EDX shows actual Eu content below nominal, so the substitution fraction is assumed.
  • domain assumption A shielding volume fraction above 75% at 2 K indicates bulk superconductivity.
    Standard interpretation for powder samples without demagnetization correction; used to distinguish bulk from filamentary superconductivity.
  • domain assumption Impurity phases do not produce the observed superconducting transitions.
    For x=0.5 and 0.6, the paper explains the mismatch between magnetic and resistive Tc using higher-Tc particles without identifying them; this is an assumption about the phase distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improvement of superconducting properties by chemical pressure effect in Eu-doped La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JU7JI4A

@misc{pith2026190809311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improvement of superconducting properties by chemical pressure effect in Eu-doped La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JU7JI4A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09311}
}
read the original abstract

We have investigated the substitution effect of Eu on the superconductivity in La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6. Recently, we reported an observation of superconductivity at 0.5 K in a layered oxychalcogenide La2O2Bi3AgS6. The Sn doping at the Ag site was found to raise the superconducting transition temperature, Tc to 2.5 K in La2O2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6. To further improve the superconducting properties, we have partially substituted Eu for the La site to increase the chemical pressure in La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x = 0.1 to 0.6). With the increase in Eu concentration, x, the lattice constant a was found to shrink, while the lattice constant c was marginally shortened, which suggests that the chemical pressure induced by the Eu doping is uniaxial along the a-axis. Tc was observed to increase with increasing x up to x = 0.4, further decreasing for higher Eu concentrations of x = 0.5 and 0.6. From the magnetic susceptibility and resistivity measurements, the bulk nature of superconductivity has been observed for x = 0.1 to 0.5 with Tc = 2.5 to 4.0 K, respectively. The upper critical field (Bc2) was noted to be 3.5 T for x = 0.4, which also has the highest Tc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09311 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (color online) (a) The room temperature XRD pattern of La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x = 0-0.6) compounds. (b) The XRD pattern near to 103 (Miller indices) peak of tetragonal phase of La2O2Bi3AgS6. (c) The schematic unit cell of La1.6Eu0.4O2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 compound.(d) Lattice parameters a and c obtained by a refinement using the Rietveld method with RIETAN-FP [23]. (e) The nominal composition of Eu in La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the synchrotron XRD (SXRD) pattern and the Rietveld refinement result for the La1.6Eu0.4O2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 sample. The SXRD pattern was refined using multi-phase analysis with the main phase identified with the tetragonal P4/nmm space group of La2O2Bi3AgS6-type and the impurity phases identified with Bi2S3(5%) and Eu2Sn2O7(4.4%). The refined lattice constants are a = 4.04984(5)Å and c = 19.42801(4)Å. The reliab… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a-g) Temperature (T) dependence of magnetic susceptibility () for La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x = 0– 0.6) compounds measured in the ZFC and the FC protocol for an applied magnetic field of 1 mT. (h) Eu concentration (x) dependence on the shielding volume fraction of La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x = 0-0.6). 1 2 3 4 5 6 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 FC La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 4emucm 3 Oe T (K) x=0 B = 1 mT ZFC (a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Temperature (T) variation of magnetic susceptibility () for the La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x = 0.1- 0.6) compounds measured in the ZFC protocol from temperatures 300–2 K for an applied magnetic field of 1 T. (b) The (- χ0) -1 vs T for La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) displays the temperature dependence of electrical resistivity, ρ(T), from 300 to 1.5 K for La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x = 0–0.6). The electrical resistivity at 300 K decreases moderately with increasing Eu concentration, x, up to x = 0.4 and then increases again fo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (color online) (a) The temperature dependence of electrical resistivity from 3.0–0.5 K for the La2- xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 (x = 0) compound for various magnetic fields. (b–g) The temperature dependence of 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5(m-cm) T (K) 0T 0.02 0.05T 0.1T 0.15T 0.2T …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The x dependence of Seebeck coefficient for La2-xEuxO2Bi3Ag0.6Sn0.4S6 compounds at room temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mizuguchi Y, Fujihisa H, Gotoh Y, Suzuki K, Usui H, Kuroki K, Demura S, Takano Y, Izawa H and Miura O 2012 Phys. Rev. B 86 220510

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Mizuguchi Y, Demura S, Deguchi K, Takano Y, Fujihisa H, Gotoh Y, Izawa H and Miura O 2012 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 114725

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Singh S K, Kumar A, Gahtori B, Kirtan S, Sharma G, Patnaik S and Awana V P S 2012 J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134 16504

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Demura S, Mizuguchi Y, Deguchi K, Okazaki H, Hara H, Watanabe T, Denholme S J, Fujioka M, Ozaki T, Fujihisa H, Gotoh Y, Miura O, Yamaguchi T, Takeya H and Takano Y 2013 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 82 033708

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Supercond

    Jha R, Kumar A, Singh S K, Awana V P S 2013 J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 26 499

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Xing J, Li S, Ding X, Yang H, Wen H H 2012 Phys. Rev. B 86 214518

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Yazici D, Huang K, White B D, Chang A H, Friedman A J and Maple M B 2012 Philos. Mag. 93 673

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Yazici D, Huang K, White B D, Jeon I, Burnett V W, Friedman A J, Lum I K, Nallaiyan M, Spagna S and Maple M B 2013 Phys. Rev. B 87 174512

    work page 2013

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Phys.: Condens

    Krzton-Maziopa A, Guguchia Z, Pomjakushina E, Pomjakushin V, Khasanov R, Luetkens H, Biswas P, Amato A, Keller H and Conder K 2014 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26 215702

    2014

  2. [10]

    Mizuguchi Y, Omachi A, Goto Y, Kamihara Y, Matoba M, Hiroi T, Kajitani J and Miura O 2014 J. Appl. Phys. 116 163915

    2014

  3. [11]

    Lin X, Ni X, Chen B, Xu X, Yang X, Dai J, Li Y, Yang X, Luo Y, Tao Q, Cao G and Xu Z 2013 Phys. Rev. B 87 020504

    2013

  4. [12]

    Kotegawa H, Tomita Y, Tou H, Izawa H, Mizuguchi Y, Miura O, Demura S, Deguchi K and Takano Y 2012 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 103702

    2012

  5. [13]

    Wolowiec C T, Yazici D, White B D, Huang K and Maple M B 2013 Phys. Rev. B 88 064503

    2013

  6. [14]

    Phys.: Condens

    Wolowiec C T, White B D, Jeon I, Yazici D, Huang K and Maple M B 2013 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25 422201

    2013

  7. [15]

    Jha R, Tiwari B, Awana V P S 2014 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 83 063707

    2014

  8. [16]

    Jha R, Tiwari B, Awana V P S, 2015 J. Appl. Phys. 117 013901. 14

    2015

  9. [17]

    Mizuguchi Y 2019 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88 041001

    2019

  10. [18]

    Bednorz J G and Muller K A 1986 Z. Phys. B 64 189

    1986

  11. [19]

    Kamihara Y, Watanabe T, Hirano M and Hosono H 2008 J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130 3296

    2008

  12. [20]

    Sun Y L, Ablimit A, Zhai H F, Bao J K, Tang Z T, Wang X B, Wang N L, Feng C M and Cao G H 2014 Inorg. Chem. 53 11125

    2014

  13. [21]

    Mizuguchi Y , Hijikata Y, Abe T, Moriyoshi C, Kuroiwa Y, Goto Y, Miura A, Lee S, Torii S, Kamiyama T, Lee C H, Ochi M and Kuroki K 2017 EPL 119 26002

    2017

  14. [22]

    Hijikata Y, Abe T, Moriyoshi C, Kuroiwa Y, Goto Y, Miura A, Tadanaga K, Wang Y, Miura O and Mizuguchi Y 2017 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86 124802

    2017

  15. [23]

    Jha R, Goto Y, Higashinaka R, Matsuda T D, Aoki Y and Mizuguchi Y 2018 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87 083704

    2018

  16. [24]

    Mizuguchi arXiv:1810.08404

    Jha R, Goto Y, Matsuda T D, Aoki Y, Nagao M, Tanaka I and Y. Mizuguchi arXiv:1810.08404

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mizuguchi Y, Miura A, Kajitani J, Hiroi T, Miura O, Tadanaga K, Kumada N, Magome E, Moriyoshi C and Kuroiwa Y 2015 Sci. Rep. 5 14968

    2015

  18. [26]

    Kajitani J, Hiroi T, Omachi A, Miura O and Mizuguchi Y 2015 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 84 044712

    2015

  19. [27]

    Mizuguchi Y, Hoshi K, Goto Y, Miura A, Tadanaga K, Moriyoshi C, Kuroiwa Y 2018 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87 023704

    2018

  20. [28]

    Izumi F and Momma K 2007 Solid State Phenom. 130 15

    2007

  21. [29]

    Momma K and Izumi F 2008 J. Appl. Crystallogr. 41 653

    2008

  22. [30]

    Yamada A, Oike S, Higashinaka R, Matsuda T D and Aoki Y, 2017 Phys. Rev. B 96 085102

    2017

  23. [31]

    Werthamer N R, Helfand E and Hohenberg P C 1966 Phys. Rev. 147 295

    1966

  24. [32]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948 -019-05218-1

    Kim G C, Cheon M, Choi W, Ahmad D, Kwon Y S, Ko R, Kim Y C, J Supercond Nov Magn (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948 -019-05218-1

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.