Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Deterministic Formation of Single Organic Color Centers in Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By watching a carbon nanotube's photoluminescence in real time and stopping the photochemical reaction the moment a defect appears, this paper shows that single organic color centers can be formed at chosen positions, with photon…

desk verdict Plausible feedback-control scheme for single color centers in SWNTs, but the deterministic-formation claim outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20402 v1 pith:EUKPM4ID submitted 2025-04-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Daichi Kozawa , Yuto Shiota , Yuichiro K. Kato This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords single-walledcarbonnanotubesorganiccolorcenterssingle-photonemissionphotoluminescencemonitoringin-situphotochemicalreactiondeterministicfabricationquantumemittersphotonantibunching
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

Single-walled carbon nanotubes can host organic color centers that emit single photons at room temperature in the telecom band, but making exactly one at a chosen spot has been an open problem. This paper reports a watch-and-stop approach: while a UV laser drives a vapor-phase iodobenzene reaction on an air-suspended nanotube, photoluminescence spectra are recorded every half-second, and the reaction is halted the moment a discrete intensity step appears below the main emission peak. Statistical analysis of 274 functionalized nanotubes shows the intensity distribution is composed of evenly spaced clusters corresponding to zero to four color centers, with fewer than 23% of tubes carrying more than one. Position control is demonstrated by targeting different regions of individual nanotubes, and a Hanbury-Brown-Twiss measurement gives g(2)(0)=0.45, confirming single-photon emission from a formed center. If the approach holds, it turns color-center fabrication in nanotubes into a deterministic, position-controlled process suitable for quantum photonic devices.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the in-situ feedback loop: a real-time spectral differencing operation converts the photochemical reaction into a process that can be stopped on the first single-defect event. The difference spectrum is integrated over a 12 meV window just below the E11 emission, and the stop threshold is set to the root-mean-square intensity (1σ) of the pre-reaction spectra; the motorized shutter closes in 8 ms. Two statistical tools underwrite the interpretation: the Gaussian mixture model with Akaike information criterion, used to validate that intensity time traces are composed of discrete states, and a multi-Gaussian fit P(I)=Σ_j a_j exp(-(I-jµ)^2/$2σ^{2}$) that attributes evenly spaced intensity clusters to j=0,1,2,... color centers.

What would settle it

Use scanning tunneling microscopy or scanning transmission electron microscopy to count the actual number of color centers on, say, 50 nanotubes functionalized by the stopping algorithm; if a substantial fraction (more than ~20–30%) contain zero or more than one defect, the deterministic single-center claim is falsified. A faster proxy is to measure g(2)(0) on many such centers and check whether the distribution is concentrated well below 0.5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that discrete, quantized jumps in photoluminescence intensity during in-situ photochemical functionalization mark the formation of individual organic color centers, and that stopping the reaction at the first jump yields deterministic creation of a single center. The stopping algorithm acquires a pre-reaction spectrum, starts UV irradiation, and repeatedly computes the difference between the live spectrum and the pre-reaction one; when the mean difference in a 12 meV window below E11 exceeds one standard deviation of the pre-reaction noise, the shutter closes. The paper argues this produces predominantly j=1 centers, based on a multi-Gaussian fit of the post-reaction intensity distribution with components spaced by the single-center intensity µ, and shows position-controlled formation by UV targeting, validated by excitation PL images. Finally, a photon correlation measurement on an (11,3) nanotube yields g(2)(0)=0.45 under pulsed excitation, demonstrating single-photon emission from a color center formed this way.

Load-bearing premise

The stopping rule assumes that the first time the spectral difference crosses one standard deviation of the pre-reaction noise, exactly one color center has formed, and that no second center forms before or simultaneously with that first detection; a false positive or a multi-defect jump would break the deterministic single-center claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single organic color centers can be produced on demand at selected positions along air-suspended carbon nanotubes, removing the main obstacle to using nanotube color centers as building blocks for quantum photonic circuits.
  • Because the method works at room temperature and the emission falls in the telecom band, the resulting single-photon sources are compatible with fiber-based quantum communication.
  • The statistical preference for E11− emitters means the emission energy of a created center is predictable, which simplifies device design.
  • The same in-situ monitoring principle could be applied to other chiralities and other molecular precursors, giving spectral coverage beyond the (9,7) and (11,3) nanotubes demonstrated here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The observed ~23% fraction of tubes with more than one center suggests a Poisson-like limit set by the detection latency; if defect creation events are independent, the yield of exactly-one centers could be improved by lowering the UV power or shortening the spectral acquisition time, a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The g(2)(0)=0.45 value comes from a single nanotube; a survey of many algorithmically formed centers would show how often the method yields a true single-photon emitter versus a weak emitter with residual multi-photon events.
  • The feedback concept is not limited to carbon nanotubes: any defect system whose formation produces a discrete spectral signature, such as hexagonal boron nitride quantum emitters, could plausibly be controlled by the same stop-on-the-step approach.
  • Position-controlled single centers could be placed inside optical microcavities or waveguides by functionalizing already-integrated nanotubes, but doing so would require the UV targeting to maintain its precision through the device geometry.
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 a technique for the deterministic formation of single organic color centers in air-suspended single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) by in-situ photochemical reaction with real-time photoluminescence (PL) feedback. The authors monitor discrete intensity changes in PL spectra, stop ultraviolet irradiation when a threshold crossing is detected, and thereby aim to create exactly one color center at a targeted position. They validate the approach with statistical analysis of 274 PL spectra after functionalization, using a Gaussian mixture model to infer the number of color centers, demonstrate position-controlled formation via PL imaging, and report photon antibunching with g(2)(0) = 0.45 from a single color center. The central claim is that the feedback algorithm enables deterministic, position-controlled creation of single quantum emitters.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the work would be a significant advance in the controlled fabrication of quantum emitters in carbon nanotubes, relevant to room-temperature telecom-wavelength single-photon sources. The in-situ feedback approach is conceptually novel and, if properly calibrated, could enable on-demand defect engineering. The paper also provides useful statistical data on the distribution of color center numbers and emission energies, and demonstrates spatial control via PL imaging. However, the current evidence does not yet substantiate the 'deterministic' claim because the reported statistics include non-negligible fractions of zero and multiple color centers, and the stopping-rule reliability is not quantified. With additional calibration and error analysis, the work could become a strong contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Fig. 2c and Eq. (1)] The central claim of deterministic single color center formation is not supported by the paper's own statistics. The histogram in Fig. 2c exhibits a nonzero population at j = 0 (admitted in the text: 'the probability for j = 0 can be suppressed by increasing the integration time') and a j > 1 fraction of less than 23%, yet the paper does not report the actual fraction of j = 0 events or an overall success rate for the stopping rule. Without a quantitative statement of the success probability, sensitivity, and specificity of the detection algorithm, the word 'deterministic' is not justified. The authors should provide a confusion matrix or ROC analysis for the threshold detector, or alternatively reframe the claim as 'feedback-controlled formation' with explicit success statistics.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The Gaussian mixture model in Eq. (1) imposes equally spaced intensity peaks at jμ with a single fitted μ. Consequently, the observation of 'evenly spaced intensity clusters' is built into the model rather than independently demonstrated. The equal-spacing assumption should be tested, for example by fitting a model with freely varying peak positions and comparing the Akaike information criterion, or by presenting residuals from the constrained fit. The paper should also justify using the pre-reaction σ for the post-reaction Gaussian widths, since defect formation may alter the broadening beyond detector noise.
  3. [Section II, Fig. 2a and algorithm] The feedback algorithm uses a threshold of 1σ of the pre-reaction spectra on the mean intensity difference in a 12 meV window below E11, but the false-positive rate (spectral fluctuations crossing the threshold without a defect) and false-negative rate (a defect formed but not detected before the next acquisition) are not calibrated. This is load-bearing for the deterministic claim. The authors should estimate these rates, for instance by applying the same detection algorithm to time traces of unreacted nanotubes or to simulated data with known step sizes, and should discuss the impact of the 0.5 s acquisition interval on the chance of multiple defects forming before detection.
  4. [Section II, Fig. 5] The reported single-photon correlation value g(2)(0) = 0.45 is presented without error bars, background subtraction, or details of the coincidence analysis (e.g., whether the value is from a fit to the coincidence histogram, the number of coincidences, or the contribution of detector dark counts). For a claim of 'confirming the single-photon nature of the emission', the correlation measurement should include a rigorous analysis with uncertainties and a clear description of the background treatment. Additionally, the measurement is performed on an (11,3) SWNT while the statistical analysis is on (9,7) nanotubes; the paper should clarify whether the deterministic formation claim is meant to apply to both chiralities and whether the feedback algorithm was used for the (11,3) sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction use 'deterministic' repeatedly, but the data show probabilistic outcomes. I recommend softening the language to 'feedback-controlled' or 'targeted' until the success rate is quantified.
  2. [Section II, Fig. 2c] The manuscript does not state how many individual nanotubes are represented by the 274 PL spectra, or whether each spectrum is from a distinct tube. This information is needed to interpret the histogram as a distribution across devices.
  3. [Section II, Fig. 2c and Eq. (1)] The fitting procedure for Eq. (1) is not fully described: the text does not specify the initialization, constraints on a_j and μ, or the uncertainty of the fitted parameters. Adding these details would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section II, Fig. 4] The position-controlled formation is demonstrated with qualitative PL images. Adding a statistical analysis of the localization accuracy (e.g., the distance between the targeted position and the measured emission peak) would strengthen this claim.
  5. [Methods, Formation of Organic Color Centers] The UV laser power is stated as 5 nW, which seems very low for a photochemical reaction. Please verify this value and, if correct, clarify how the reaction proceeds at such low power.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Equal-spacing ansatz in Eq. (1) is presented as a discovered cluster structure, making part of the single-center validation model-dependent; independent time-trace and antibunching evidence keep the central claim from reducing entirely to the fit.

  1. self definitional [Section II, Eq. (1), Fig. 2c]
    "The distribution of the PL intensity I is well described by a probability density function P (I) = sum_{j=0}^n a_j exp(-(I - j mu)^2 / 2 sigma^2), where n is the maximum number of color centers considered, a_j represents the peak probability density for j color centers created, and mu is the mean intensity of a single color center. ... The fitted distribution reveals evenly spaced intensity clusters, which can be explained by the formation of j = 0 through 4 color centers."

    The equal spacing is imposed by the fitting function itself: every Gaussian component is forced to peak at j mu with a single shared mu. Reporting that the fitted distribution 'reveals evenly spaced intensity clusters' therefore restates the model ansatz rather than providing an independent measurement of cluster positions. The subsequent quantitative statements about the yield, including the fraction with j > 1 being less than 23 percent and the presence of j = 0 through 4 populations, are extracted from this same model and inherit its assumption that each additional color center adds exactly one fixed intensity increment mu. If the intensity increment varies with local environment, the j assignment becomes ambiguous.

full rationale

The paper's core contribution is an in-situ feedback algorithm that stops UV irradiation when the spectral difference exceeds one sigma of the pre-reaction PL spectra. That algorithm is not derived from a fitted parameter, and the claim that it forms single color centers is supported by time-trace steps and by photon antibunching, both of which are independent of the paper's model. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and the self-citations (e.g., refs. 11, 17, 23) are prior experimental methods rather than circular justifications of the present result. The one genuine circularity is in the statistical validation: Eq. (1) assumes Gaussian components centered at j mu, so the 'evenly spaced intensity clusters' reported after fitting are an artifact of the model definition rather than an independent empirical discovery. This makes the quantified success rates for single-color-center formation partly self-definitional, but it does not eliminate the independent evidence for the deterministic-formation claim. The uncalibrated threshold and the nonzero j = 0 population are correctness or robustness concerns, not circularity, and are therefore noted only as context.

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

The central claim rests on a small number of fitted parameters (mu, a_j, n, detection threshold) and on the domain assumption that intensity steps and difference-spectrum peaks map one-to-one to individual color centers. No new physical entities are introduced. The model in Eq. (1) is the main source of both fitting and circularity: the equal-spacing structure is assumed before it is used as evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • mu (single color center intensity) = not reported numerically
    Mean intensity added by one color center; fitted from the post-reaction intensity histogram in Eq. (1). The claim that clusters are spaced by exactly mu is assumed by the model.
  • a_j (peak probability density weights for j = 0..4) = not reported individually (figure only)
    Weights fitted in Eq. (1); used to conclude the fraction of multiple-defect spectra is below 23 percent.
  • n (maximum number of color centers) = 4
    Model order selected by AIC; the histogram is interpreted as j = 0 through 4 clusters.
  • detection threshold = 1 sigma of pre-reaction spectra
    Hand-chosen stopping criterion with no reported calibration of false-positive or false-negative rates; the central claim of deterministic single-center formation depends on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each formed color center contributes an identical, additive photoluminescence intensity mu regardless of its position on the tube or local environment (Eq. 1).
    Needed for the histogram peaks to be interpreted as j centers. Real defects can couple differently to the exciton, so this is a strong assumption.
  • domain assumption Discrete steps in E11 and E−11 time traces correspond one-to-one to the formation of individual color centers or quenching sites, with negligible spectral diffusion or broadening in most nanotubes.
    Underlies the feedback algorithm and the GMM analysis; the paper states spectral diffusion is insignificant but provides no quantitative bound or statistics.
  • domain assumption Detecting the difference-spectrum intensity in a 12 meV window below E11 is specific to color center emission and not to other changes such as intensity drift or phonon sideband shifts.
    The feedback loop and the stopping decision depend entirely on this window; the cancellation of the phonon sideband is stated but not validated on unreacted controls.
  • standard math Standard Gaussian mixture modeling and Akaike information criterion provide objective determination of the number of intensity levels.
    The GMM/AIC formalism is standard, but the conclusion drawn (number of color centers) inherits the model's assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic Formation of Single Organic Color Centers in Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUKPM4ID

@misc{pith2026250420402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic Formation of Single Organic Color Centers in Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUKPM4ID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20402}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum light sources using single-walled carbon nanotubes show promise for quantum technologies but face challenges in achieving precise control over color center formation. Here we present a novel technique for deterministic creation of single organic color centers in carbon nanotubes using \textit{in-situ} photochemical reaction. By monitoring discrete intensity changes in photoluminescence spectra, we achieve precise control over the formation of individual color centers. Furthermore, our method allows for position-controlled formation of color centers as validated through photoluminescence imaging. We also demonstrate photon antibunching from a color center, confirming the quantum nature of the defects formed. This technique represents a significant step forward in the precise engineering of atomically defined quantum emitters in carbon nanotubes, facilitating their integration into advanced quantum photonic devices and systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20402 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) A schematic of an experimental setup for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) A flow chart of the algorithm for a single color center formation. (b) Spectral difference before and after reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Statistical distribution of the emission energies after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spatial control over color center formation in SWNTs. (a–c) Schematics of air-suspended SWNTs where target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) PL spectra of a functionalized (11,3) SWNT show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aharonovich, D

    I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, and M. Toth, Solid-state single-photon emitters, Nat. Photonics 10, 631 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. Photonics 1, 165 (2007). 7

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Di Ventra and Y

    M. Di Ventra and Y. V. Pershin, The parallel approach, Nat. Phys. 9, 200 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Kurtsiefer, S

    C. Kurtsiefer, S. Mayer, P. Zarda, and H. Weinfurter, Stable solid-state source of single photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 290 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    Michler, A

    P. Michler, A. Imamo˘ glu, M. D. Mason, P. J. Carson, G. F. Strouse, and S. K. Buratto, Quantum correlation among photons from a single quantum dot at room tem- perature, Nature 406, 968 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Koperski, K

    M. Koperski, K. Nogajewski, A. Arora, V. Cherkez, P. Mallet, J.-Y. Veuillen, J. Marcus, P. Kossacki, and M. Potemski, Single photon emitters in exfoliated wse2 structures, Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 503 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Kozawa, S

    D. Kozawa, S. X. Li, T. Ichihara, A. G. Rajan, X. Gong, G. He, V. B. Koman, Y. Zeng, M. Kuehne, K. S. Silmore, D. Parviz, P. Liu, A. T. Liu, S. Faucher, Z. Yuan, J. Warner, D. Blankschtein, and M. S. Strano, Discretized hexagonal boron nitride quantum emitters and their chemical interconversion, Nanotechnology 34, 115702 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    T. T. Tran, K. Bray, M. J. Ford, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Quantum emission from hexagonal boron nitride monolayers, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 37 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    X. He, N. F. Hartmann, X. Ma, Y. Kim, R. Ihly, J. L. Blackburn, W. Gao, J. Kono, Y. Yomogida, A. Hirano, T. Tanaka, H. Kataura, H. Htoon, and S. K. Doorn, Tun- able room-temperature single-photon emission at telecom wavelengths from sp 3 defects in carbon nanotubes, Nat. Photo...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Ishii, T

    A. Ishii, T. Uda, and Y. K. Kato, Room-temperature single-photon emission from micrometer-long air- suspended carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 054039 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Saito, G

    R. Saito, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Trigonal warping effect of carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B 61, 2981 (2000)

    2000

  5. [13]

    Avouris, M

    P. Avouris, M. Freitag, and V. Perebeinos, Carbon- nanotube photonics and optoelectronics, Nat. Photonics 2, 341 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Kozawa, S

    D. Kozawa, S. Fujii, and Y. K. Kato, Intrinsic process for upconversion photoluminescence via K-momentum– phonon coupling in carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B 110, 155418 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    R. B. Weisman and S. M. Bachilo, Dependence of optical transition energies on structure for single-walled carbon nanotubes in aqueous suspension: an empirical Kataura plot, Nano Lett. 3, 1235 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Zaumseil, Luminescent defects in single-walled car- bon nanotubes for applications, Adv

    J. Zaumseil, Luminescent defects in single-walled car- bon nanotubes for applications, Adv. Opt. Mater. 10, 2101576 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Ishii, M

    A. Ishii, M. Yoshida, and Y. K. Kato, Exciton diffusion, end quenching, and exciton-exciton annihilation in indi- vidual air-suspended carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B91, 125427 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    H. Kwon, A. Furmanchuk, M. Kim, B. Meany, Y. Guo, G. C. Schatz, and Y. Wang, Molecularly tunable fluo- rescent quantum defects, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138, 6878 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Q. Dou, B. Xu, X. Wu, J. Mo, and Y. Wang, Tunable photo-patterning of organic color-centers, Mater. Des. 212, 110252 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Huang, L

    Z. Huang, L. R. Powell, X. Wu, M. Kim, H. Qu, P. Wang, J. L. Fortner, B. Xu, A. L. Ng, and Y. Wang, Photolitho- graphic patterning of organic color-centers, Adv. Mater. 32, 1906517 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Ishii, X

    A. Ishii, X. He, N. F. Hartmann, H. Machiya, H. Htoon, S. K. Doorn, and Y. K. Kato, Enhanced single-photon emission from carbon-nanotube dopant states coupled to silicon microcavities, Nano Lett. 18, 3873 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Ishii, H

    A. Ishii, H. Machiya, and Y. K. Kato, High efficiency dark-to-bright exciton conversion in carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041048 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Kozawa, X

    D. Kozawa, X. Wu, A. Ishii, J. Fortner, K. Otsuka, R. Xi- ang, T. Inoue, S. Maruyama, Y. Wang, and Y. K. Kato, Formation of organic color centers in air-suspended car- bon nanotubes using vapor-phase reaction, Nat. Com- mun. 13, 2814 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Bandyopadhyay and M

    A. Bandyopadhyay and M. P. Goldschen-Ohm, Unsuper- vised selection of optimal single-molecule time series ide- alization criterion, Biophys. J. 120, 4472 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    X. Wu, M. Kim, H. Kwon, and Y. Wang, Photochemi- cal creation of fluorescent quantum defects in semicon- ducting carbon nanotube hosts, Angew. Chem. 57, 648 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    M. Nutz, J. Zhang, M. Kim, H. Kwon, X. Wu, Y. Wang, and A. H¨ ogele, Photon correlation spectroscopy of lu- minescent quantum defects in carbon nanotubes, Nano Lett. 19, 7078 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    J. K. Kariuki and M. T. McDermott, Nucleation and growth of functionalized aryl films on graphite electrodes, Langmuir 15, 6534 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    J. Wang, M. J. Shea, J. T. Flach, T. J. McDonough, A. J. Way, M. T. Zanni, and M. S. Arnold, Role of de- fects as exciton quenching sites in carbon nanotube pho- tovoltaics, J. Phys. Chem. C 121, 8310 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    B. J. Gifford, X. He, M. Kim, H. Kwon, A. Saha, A. E. Sifain, Y. Wang, H. Htoon, S. Kilina, S. K. Doorn, and S. Tretiak, Optical effects of divalent functionalization of carbon nanotubes, Chem. Mater. 31, 6950 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    A. Saha, B. J. Gifford, X. He, G. Ao, M. Zheng, H. Kataura, H. Htoon, S. Kilina, S. Tretiak, and S. K. Doorn, Narrow-band single-photon emission through se- lective aryl functionalization of zigzag carbon nanotubes, Nat. Chem. 10, 1089 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    X. He, B. J. Gifford, N. F. Hartmann, R. Ihly, X. Ma, S. V. Kilina, Y. Luo, K. Shayan, S. Strauf, J. L. Black- burn, S. Tretiak, S. K. Doorn, and H. Htoon, Low- temperature single carbon nanotube spectroscopy of sp 3 quantum defects, ACS Nano 11, 10785 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Moritsubo, T

    S. Moritsubo, T. Murai, T. Shimada, Y. Murakami, S. Chiashi, S. Maruyama, and Y. K. Kato, Exciton dif- fusion in air-suspended single-walled carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 247402 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    C. Li, N. Mendelson, R. Ritika, Y. Chen, Z.-Q. Xu, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Scalable and determinis- tic fabrication of quantum emitter arrays from hexagonal boron nitride, Nano Lett. 21, 3626 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    M. Kim, X. Wu, G. Ao, X. He, H. Kwon, N. F. Hart- mann, M. Zheng, S. K. Doorn, and Y. Wang, Mapping structure-property relationships of organic color centers, Chem 4, 2180 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    N. Fang, Y. R. Chang, S. Fujii, D. Yamashita, M. Maruyama, Y. Gao, C. F. Fong, D. Kozawa, K. Ot- suka, K. Nagashio, S. Okada, and Y. K. Kato, Room- temperature quantum emission from interface excitons in 8 mixed-dimensional heterostructures, Nat. Commun. 15, 2871 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Z. Li, K. Otsuka, D. Yamashita, D. Kozawa, and Y. K. Kato, Quantum emission assisted by energy landscape modification in pentacene-decorated carbon nanotubes, ACS Photonics 8, 2367 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.