Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 130 references

Tunable Nanostructuring for van der Waals Materials

T0 review · 4 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One femtosecond laser setup in a liquid turns more than fifty van der Waals precursors into stable, crystalline nanoparticles with shapes from spheres to nanocubes.

desk verdict A real breadth-first data set on fs-laser vdW nanoparticles, with an unproven universality claim that needs failure statistics before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14060 v1 pith:OJCG3QR2 submitted 2024-11-21 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics

Gleb Tselikov , Anton Minnekhanov , Georgy Ermolaev , Gleb Tikhonowski , Ivan Kazantsev , Dmitry Dyubo , Daria Panova , Daniil Tselikov
show 14 more authors
Anton Popov Arslan Mazitov Sergei Smirnov Fedor Lipilin Umer Ahsan Nikita Orekhov Ivan Kruglov Alexander Syuy Andrei Kabashin Boris Chichkov Zdenek Sofer Aleksey Arsenin Kostya Novoselov Valentyn Volkov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics
keywords vanderWaalsmaterialsfemtosecondlaserablationfragmentationinliquidsnanoparticlestransitionmetaldichalcogenidesMXenesperovskitescolloidalstability
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 argues that one simple laboratory recipe—shooting femtosecond laser pulses at a van der Waals crystal or powder sitting in a liquid—can be turned into a general way of making nanoparticles from layered materials. The authors report that the same protocol yields stable, crystalline nanoparticles from more than fifty precursors, including transition metal dichalcogenides, MXenes, and a perovskite, while preserving the parent material's composition and crystal structure. They show that particle size can be adjusted by changing the solvent and that different materials come out with different well-defined shapes, from spheres to cubes, pyramids, and faceted polyhedra. If the claim holds, it replaces material-specific nanostructuring recipes with a single express method, which matters because nanostructuring has been the bottleneck for using van der Waals materials in devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the femtosecond laser ablation and fragmentation-in-liquid process itself: focused fs pulses with intensity $>10^9$ W/cm$^2$ strike a bulk crystal or powder dispersed in acetonitrile, ejecting material that condenses through a plasma and cavitation bubble into colloidal nanoparticles. The fs pulse width is what preserves the parent crystal structure, because it minimizes thermal damage, and the liquid's confinement plus the supercontinuum generated in it let nearly any source material absorb the pulse energy. Fragmentation proceeds through Coulomb explosion and photothermal evaporation, while the choice of solvent adjusts particle size, oxidation state, and optical extinction. The argument is completed by molecular dynamics with machine-learned moment tensor potentials, which shows MoS2 droplets crystallize by competing surface-shell and bulk processes, so the cooling rate controls the shell-to-core ratio and crystallite size.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to apply the exact acetonitrile protocol to a list of van der Waals materials selected without regard to ease of ablation—including air-sensitive MXenes, low-melting perovskites, and refractory chalcogenides—and count how many yield crystalline nanoparticles with the parent composition; if the success rate is materially below the reported set, the universality claim fails. A supporting quantitative check would report per-material morphology yields and failed syntheses, which the paper does not include.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that one experimental protocol—pulsed femtosecond laser ablation of bulk crystals or fragmentation of powders in acetonitrile—turns van der Waals precursors into stable colloidal nanoparticles without bespoke chemistry per material. The authors report success on over fifty precursors spanning transition metal dichalcogenides, MXenes, perovskites, and related layered compounds, with detailed electron microscopy, diffraction, and EDX evidence for six representative cases: MoSe2, PtTe2, Ti3C2, HfS3, WTe2, and MAPbBr3. The nanoparticles keep the parent crystal structure and composition while appearing as nanospheres, fullerene-like polyhedra, faceted polygons, equilateral nanopyramids with a 7.5 nm step pitch, and nanocubes. Size is reported as a tunable outcome: changing the solvent moves MoS2 from roughly 75 nm in water to 42 nm in acetone to 15 nm in acetonitrile, and centrifugation separates size fractions. Molecular dynamics with machine-learned potentials attributes the internal structure to competing surface-shell and bulk crystallization during cooling, with the shell-to-core ratio set by cooling rate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fifty-plus precursors shown are a fair sample of van der Waals materials as a class; no failed syntheses or per-material success rates are reported, so the claimed universality rests on the selection being representative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single setup can screen a library of van der Waals precursors: the same laser and solvent combination already produced nanoparticles from more than fifty materials, so adding a new candidate to the workflow requires no new chemistry.
  • Solvent choice gives a straightforward size dial: reported MoS2 modes shift from 75 nm in water to 42 nm in acetone to 15 nm in acetonitrile, which translates directly into tuneable optical extinction.
  • Because the nanoparticles keep the parent composition and crystallinity, their electronic and optical behavior should follow from the parent material, allowing the van der Waals family's known properties to be transferred to colloidal form.
  • The cooling-rate dependence of the core-shell structure, seen in the molecular dynamics simulations, means laser parameters that change the thermal history can be used to engineer internal nanostructure and therefore optical response.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper implicitly redefines the method as a discovery tool: if universality is real, a lab can ablate dozens of van der Waals materials in one session and generate a first map of which layered crystals form stable colloids, a resource that does not currently exist.
  • The material-specific shapes (WTe2 nanopyramids, MAPbBr3 nanocubes, HfS3 polygons) hint that final morphology is partly inherited from the precursor's crystal habit, not solely controlled by laser parameters; this could be tested by ablating one material under widely varying solvents and pulse energies to see whether its shape family persists.
  • A natural testable extension is to combine the demonstrated centrifugation size sorting with solvent tuning to produce monodisperse, shape-selected nanoparticle libraries and then measure application-relevant properties such as photothermal conversion or catalytic activity per shape; the paper's data make this feasible but do not demonstrate it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 9 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports that femtosecond pulsed laser ablation and fragmentation in liquids can produce stable colloidal nanoparticles (NPs) from a wide range of van der Waals (vdW) precursors, and claims this constitutes an express, universal nanostructuring method. Over 50 precursor materials are claimed, covering transition metal dichalcogenides, MXenes, perovskites, and other layered compounds, while the main text gives detailed TEM/HAADF/SAED/EDX characterization for six representative materials (MoSe2, PtTe2, Ti3C2, HfS3, WTe2, MAPbBr3). The NPs are reported to retain the composition and crystal structure of the initial materials while exhibiting diverse shapes ranging from spheres to fullerene-like polygons, nanopyramids, and nanocubes; solvent choice is shown to tune size (e.g., MoS2 NPs from 75 ± 41 nm in water to 15 ± 9 nm in acetonitrile). Machine-learned molecular dynamics of MoS2 melt crystallization predicts a core-shell polycrystal whose shell/core ratio depends on cooling rate, and the paper projects the approach to 'more than 5,000 members of the vdW family.'

Significance. If the universality claim is corroborated by full statistics, the result is a significant practical advance: a single laser-based protocol that could replace material-specific nanostructuring recipes for layered compounds, supported here by direct TEM, HAADF, SAED, and EDX evidence, reproducible synthesis parameters, and quantitative size distributions. The molecular dynamics uses a machine-learned moment tensor potential with explicit training-data error rather than ad hoc parameters, and no free parameters are fitted to the target experimental results, so the circularity concern raised in review does not land. The Discussion appropriately acknowledges scalability, recyclability, and stability as remaining challenges. The significance is nevertheless contingent: the 'over 50 materials' and 'universal' claims rest on the reported sample being representative, with defined success criteria, and that is exactly what is missing.

major comments (4)
  1. [The versatility of the laser ablation method for the synthesis of vdW NPs] The central claim of universality, based on 'over 50 materials' in the Abstract and Conclusions, is not supported by the evidence presented. Detailed characterization is given for only six materials (MoSe2, PtTe2, Ti3C2, HfS3, WTe2, MAPbBr3); the remaining ~44 precursors appear only in Figure S1 and Table S1, which are not included in the manuscript text as provided. No denominator is reported: the number of precursors attempted, the number of failed syntheses, the per-material success criterion (colloid stability, crystallinity, or shape yield), and the fraction of particles per sample displaying the claimed 'well-defined' geometry are all absent. Without these data, the claim cannot be distinguished from a curated selection of favorable cases, and the extrapolation to 'more than 5,000 members of the vdW family' (Introduction, Conclusions) is unsupported. Please provide a complete per-material table with the synthesis route (ablation vs fragmentation), outcome, yield, morphology distribution, and the corresponding SI data, and calibrate the wording to what is demonstrated.
  2. [Morphology and structure of vdW NPs (Figure 5)] The claim of tunable shape ('from nanospheres to nanocubes and nanotetrahedrons', Abstract) is unquantified. The text states that 'spherical NPs remain the most dominant and typical shape', and for HfS3, WTe2, and MAPbBr3, Figure 5 shows bimodal size distributions in which the non-spherical fraction (polygons, pyramids, cubes) appears as a second, minority peak (e.g., (17 ± 6) nm vs (144 ± 86) nm for WTe2). The fraction of particles in the shape-specific population is not reported, nor is any quantitative criterion for 'well-defined geometry' given. In addition, the size distributions are obtained with an ImageJ 'circle fit approximation' (Methods), which is not a well-defined metric for anisotropic particles such as 180 nm nanopyramids with a 7.5 nm step pitch. Please report per-morphology yields and adopt shape-appropriate size metrics (e.g., edge length for cubes and pyramids).
  3. [Morphology and structure of vdW NPs] There is an internal tension in the structure-preservation claim. The text asserts that NPs 'retain crystallographic planes and chemical compositions corresponding to the initial materials' and the Conclusions claim 'maintaining the original crystalline structure of over 50 vdW materials', yet two paragraphs later it reports that MoSe2 and PtTe2 NPs have 'unique interplanar distances in their crystalline shells, which differ from those of the initial materials'. As written, the abstract claim of 'perfectly defined crystalline structures' is not quantitatively defined: what deviation in interplanar spacing, and in what fraction of the particle, is still considered 'corresponding to the initial material'? Please specify the tolerance and give measured versus bulk d-spacings for each detailed material, including the 6.4 Å shell spacing of HfS3 and the 2.6 Å spacing of Ti3C2.
  4. [Laser-driven synthesis of vdW NPs (Figure 2b, Figures S3-S4)] The MD simulations of MoS2 melt crystallization are used to claim that 'the cooling process can modulate the nanostructure parameters of NPs and their optical properties'. However, the modeled cooling rates (0.08-2 K/ns) are not tied to any experimental control or measurement in the laser ablation or fragmentation setup, and no quantitative comparison is made between the MD-predicted shell thickness, inner crystallite size, or their cooling-rate dependence and the TEM observations. As presented, the MD is illustrative rather than validated mechanistic support. Please add a quantitative MD-experiment comparison (e.g., for MoS2 or MoSe2 NPs) or explicitly soften the claim to state that the simulations suggest a cooling-rate dependence that is not yet experimentally verified.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'disarming simplicity' is informal for a journal article; suggest 'remarkable simplicity' or similar.
  2. [Figure 5] Clarify which panels are SEM and which are TEM; the caption says 'TEM/SEM image', but the Methods state that size distributions were measured from SEM images by circle fitting while the text refers to TEM images.
  3. [Methods (Molecular dynamics)] The MTP accuracy is quoted as the error on the training data (16 meV/atom); please also report the prediction error on validation configurations held out during the active-learning iterations, since the training error alone can be overly optimistic.
  4. [Figure 6] The pie chart is said to be based on 'an analysis of over 3,000 scholarly articles', but no methodology, search terms, or citation are given; please specify the analysis or move the figure to the SI with a description.
  5. [Data Availability] The datasets are 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request', but the manuscript cites Figures S1-S4 and Table S1 without including them in the provided text; please deposit the SI and, ideally, the raw TEM/SAED data in a public repository.
  6. [Morphology and structure of vdW NPs] The term 'unique interplanar distances' should be replaced with the measured values and a comparison with the bulk lattice parameters, as the current wording is imprecise.
  7. [Introduction] References [45] and [60] are the authors' own prior work on MoS2 NPs; the novelty of the present contribution relative to those works should be stated explicitly in the introduction.
  8. [The versatility of the laser ablation method for the synthesis of vdW NPs] The zeta-potential validation of colloidal stability (Figure S2d) is mentioned but no typical values are given in the text; please report representative zeta-potentials.
  9. [Discussion] Subscript formatting is inconsistent (e.g., 'WS₂', 'Ta₂C', and 'Cu2-xS' alongside 'MoS2'); please unify the formatting throughout the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the universality claim rests on independent TEM/SAED/EDX observations, and the few self-citations are motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's core claim—that femtosecond laser ablation and fragmentation yield stable, crystalline, shape-diverse vdW nanoparticles from more than 50 precursors—is an experimental generalization supported by direct TEM, HAADF, SAED, and EDX characterization rather than by a fitted model or by equations that define the outcome in terms of the inputs. Detailed microscopy is reported for MoSe2, PtTe2, Ti3C2, HfS3, WTe2, and MAPbBr3, with the remaining materials summarized in the SI; nothing in the main text reduces a 'prediction' to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. The MD portion uses a machine-learned MTP fitted to DFT energies and forces, and the resulting core-shell crystallization mechanism is an independent simulation output, not an input assumed to produce the claimed universality. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (refs 45, 60, 122, 123) establish the starting ablation/fragmentation protocol and earlier MoS2 size-separation results; these are motivational and methodological, not the evidence for the 50+ material claim. Thus no circular step can be quoted from the paper's equations or logic. Possible weaknesses—lack of per-material success rates, selection-bias in the reported 50+ list, and internal tension in interplanar-distance claims—are correctness and evidence concerns, not circularity.

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

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The central experimental claim does not require fitting any numerical parameter to its outcome; the supporting MD simulation uses an ML potential fitted to DFT data, but that potential is not needed for the universality claim. The main load-bearing assumptions are domain assumptions about laser synthesis preserving structure and composition and about MTP transferability.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Femtosecond laser ablation and fragmentation preserve the crystalline structure and chemical composition of the precursor vdW material.
    Stated in the Introduction and used throughout Experimental Results (Figure 4, Table S1). This is the load-bearing premise connecting NPs to starting materials. It is only verified for the subset of materials shown.
  • domain assumption The machine-learned MTP potential trained on 3,250 Mo-S configurations extrapolates reliably to MoS2 melt crystallization at 0.08-2 K/ns cooling rates.
    Methods, Molecular dynamics. The reported 16 meV/atom error is on the training set; no held-out validation is given. The MD conclusions about core-shell structure are supporting rather than central.
  • domain assumption Acetonitrile prevents significant oxidation and preserves composition of the synthesized NPs.
    Methods, laser-assisted synthesis: 'Acetonitrile was used to preserve the original material composition and reduce possible oxidation.' This underpins composition claims.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable Nanostructuring for van der Waals Materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJCG3QR2

@misc{pith2026241114060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable Nanostructuring for van der Waals Materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJCG3QR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14060}
}
read the original abstract

Van der Waals (vdW) materials are becoming increasingly popular in scientific and industrial applications because of their unique mixture of record electronic, optical, and mechanical properties. However, nanostructuring of vdW materials is still in its infancy and strongly depends on the specific vdW crystal. As a result, the universal self-assembled technology of vdW materials nanostructuring opens vast technological prospects. This work demonstrates an express and universal synthesis method of vdW nanoparticles with well-defined geometry using femtosecond laser ablation and fragmentation. The disarming simplicity of the technique allows us to create nanoparticles from over 50 vdW precursor materials covering transition metal chalcogenides, MXenes, and other vdW materials. Obtained nanoparticles manifest perfectly defined crystalline structures and diverse shapes, from nanospheres to nanocubes and nanotetrahedrons. Thus, our work provides a new paradigm for vdW nanostructuring with a vast potential of tunability for size, shape, and materials specific to the particular application.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic depiction of the periodic table (centered in a condensed format) with some prominent classes of layered materials that can be synthesized into regular NPs via laser ablation. The top part of the figure shows the crystalline structures of these materials, while the bottom part displays electron microscopy images of the NPs obtained by this method. Material classes are highlighted in color, and promising ele… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic representation of laser-driven synthesis of vdW NPs, (b) atomic structure of core-shell MoS2 polycrystal generated in MD (top) and TEM image of MoS2 NP (bottom). The versatility of the laser ablation method for the synthesis of vdW NPs Despite the extensive quantitative and structural diversity of vdW materials, laser synthesis in liquid facilitates the production of stable colloidal NPs from a wide ra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three-dimensional representation of the crystal structure of vdW materials, pictures of initial crystals/powders/solutions, and TEM image of laser-synthesized vdW NPs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structural and compositional analysis of laser-synthesized vdW NPs. Each panel includes TEM, HAADF, SAED characterizations, and EDX analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Size distribution and representative TEM/SEM image of laser-synthesized vdW NPs. Thus, we have demonstrated that a relatively simple method, specifically laser ablation or fragmentation, can be effectively used to synthesize NPs from a wide range of vdW materials. A di…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Potential applications of geometrically precise vdW NPs. The pie chart categorizes the application sectors based on an analysis of over 3,000 scholarly articles related to TMDC nanoflakes or nanomaterials. The relative sizes of the pie chart segments qualitatively repr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Q. H. Wang, K. Kalantar -Zadeh, A. Kis, J. N. Coleman, M. S. Strano, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7, 699

    2012

  2. [2]

    Mueller, E

    T. Mueller, E. Malic, Npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2018, 2, 1

    2018

  3. [3]

    H. Park, M. Lee, X. Wang, N. Ali, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Hwang, W. J. Yoo, Commun. Mater. 2024, 5, 1

    2024

  4. [4]

    Liang, B

    S. Liang, B. Cheng, X. Cui, F. Miao, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1903800

    2020

  5. [5]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, J.-G. Park, Nature 2018, 563, 47

    2018

  6. [6]

    Q. H. Wang, A. Bedoya-Pinto, M. Blei, A. H. Dismukes, A. Hamo, S. Jenkins, M. Koperski, Y. Liu, Q.-C. Sun, E. J. Telford, H. H. Kim, M. Augustin, U. Vool, J. -X. Yin, L. H. Li, A. Falin, C. R. Dean, F. Casanova, R. F. L. Evans, M. Chshiev, A. Mishchenko , C. Petrovic, R. He, L. Zhao, A. W. Tsen, B. D. Gerardot, M. Brotons -Gisbert, Z. Guguchia, X. Roy, S....

    2022

  7. [7]

    J. T. Gish, D. Lebedev, T. W. Song, V. K. Sangwan, M. C. Hersam, Nat. Electron. 2024, 1

    2024

  8. [8]

    A. K. Geim, I. V. Grigorieva, Nature 2013, 499, 419

    2013

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. Mishchenko, A. Carvalho, A. H. Castro Neto, Science 2016, 353, aac9439

    2016

  2. [10]

    J.-H. Fu, A. -Y. Lu, N. J. Madden, C. C. Wu, Y. -C. Chen, M. -H. Chiu, K. Hattar, J. A. Krogstad, S. S. Chou, L.-J. Li, J. Kong, V. Tung, Commun. Mater. 2020, 1, 1

    2020

  3. [11]

    D. Hu, X. Yang, C. Li, R. Liu, Z. Yao, H. Hu, S. N. G. Corder, J. Chen, Z. Sun, M. Liu, Q. Dai, Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1471

    2017

  4. [12]

    G. A. Ermolaev, D. V. Grudinin, Y. V. Stebunov, K. V. Voronin, V. G. Kravets, J. Duan, A. B. Mazitov, G. I. Tselikov, A. Bylinkin, D. I. Yakubovsky, S. M. Novikov, D. G. Baranov, A. Y. Nikitin, I. A. Kruglov, T. Shegai, P. Alonso -González, A. N. Grigo renko, A. V. Arsenin, K....

    2021

  5. [13]

    Mooshammer, S

    F. Mooshammer, S. Chae, S. Zhang, Y. Shao, S. Qiu, A. Rajendran, A. J. Sternbach, D. J. Rizzo, X. Zhu, P. J. Schuck, J. C. Hone, D. N. Basov, ACS Photonics 2022, 9, 443

    2022

  6. [14]

    A. A. Vyshnevyy, G. A. Ermolaev, D. V. Grudinin, K. V. Voronin, I. Kharichkin, A. Mazitov, I. A. Kruglov, D. I. Yakubovsky, P. Mishra, R. V. Kirtaev, A. V. Arsenin, K. S. Novoselov, L. Martin-Moreno, V. S. Volkov, Nano Lett. 2023, 23, 8057

    2023

  7. [15]

    Y. Meng, J. Feng, S. Han, Z. Xu, W. Mao, T. Zhang, J. S. Kim, I. Roh, Y. Zhao, D.-H. Kim, Y. Yang, J.-W. Lee, L. Yang, C.-W. Qiu, S.-H. Bae, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2023, 8, 498

    2023

  8. [16]

    Verre, D

    R. Verre, D. G. Baranov, B. Munkhbat, J. Cuadra, M. Käll, T. Shegai, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 679

    2019

  9. [17]

    Flöry, P

    N. Flöry, P. Ma, Y. Salamin, A. Emboras, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Leuthold, L. Novotny, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2020, 15, 118

    2020

  10. [18]

    H. Ling, J. B. Khurgin, A. R. Davoyan, Nano Lett. 2022, 22, 6254

    2022

  11. [19]

    D. A. Bandurin, E. Mönch, K. Kapralov, I. Y. Phinney, K. Lindner, S. Liu, J. H. Edgar, I. A. Dmitriev, P. Jarillo-Herrero, D. Svintsov, S. D. Ganichev, Nat. Phys. 2022, 18, 462

    2022

  12. [20]

    Anasori, M

    B. Anasori, M. R. Lukatskaya, Y. Gogotsi, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2017, 2, 1

    2017

  13. [21]

    Chaves, J

    A. Chaves, J. G. Azadani, H. Alsalman, D. R. da Costa, R. Frisenda, A. J. Chaves, S. H. Song, Y. D. Kim, D. He, J. Zhou, A. Castellanos-Gomez, F. M. Peeters, Z. Liu, C. L. Hinkle, S.-H. Oh, P. D. Ye, S. J. Koester, Y. H. Lee, P. Avouris, X. Wang, T. L ow, Npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2...

    2020

  14. [22]

    C. R. Dean, A. F. Young, I. Meric, C. Lee, L. Wang, S. Sorgenfrei, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2010, 5, 722

    2010

  15. [23]

    O. Song, D. Rhee, J. Kim, Y. Jeon, V. Mazánek, A. Söll, Y. A. Kwon, J. H. Cho, Y. -H. Kim, Z. Sofer, J. Kang, Npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2022, 6, 1

    2022

  16. [24]

    Y. Shao, L. Wei, X. Wu, C. Jiang, Y. Yao, B. Peng, H. Chen, J. Huangfu, Y. Ying, C. J. Zhang, J. Ping, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3223

    2022

  17. [25]

    L. Sun, G. Yuan, L. Gao, J. Yang, M. Chhowalla, M. H. Gharahcheshmeh, K. K. Gleason, Y. S. Choi, B. H. Hong, Z. Liu, Nat. Rev. Methods Primer 2021, 1, 1

    2021

  18. [26]

    A. V. Kabashin, Ph. Delaporte, A. Pereira, D. Grojo, R. Torres, Th. Sarnet, M. Sentis, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2010, 5, 454

    2010

  19. [27]

    Castellanos-Gomez, M

    A. Castellanos-Gomez, M. Barkelid, A. M. Goossens, V. E. Calado, H. S. J. van der Zant, G. A. Steele, Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 3187

    2012

  20. [28]

    Mupparapu, M

    R. Mupparapu, M. Steinert, A. George, Z. Tang, A. Turchanin, T. Pertsch, I. Staude, Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 7, 2000858

    2020

  21. [29]

    Munkhbat, A

    B. Munkhbat, A. B. Yankovich, D. G. Baranov, R. Verre, E. Olsson, T. O. Shegai, Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4604

    2020

  22. [30]

    A. V. Kabashin, M. Meunier, J. Appl. Phys. 2003, 94, 7941

    2003

  23. [31]

    I. B. Belyaev, I. V. Zelepukin, P. A. Kotelnikova, G. V. Tikhonowski, A. A. Popov, A. Yu. Kapitannikova, J. Barman, A. N. Kopylov, D. N. Bratashov, E. S. Prikhozhdenko, A. V. Kabashin, S. M. Deyev, A. V. Zvyagin, Adv. Sci. 2024, 11, 2307060

    2024

  24. [32]

    N. G. Semaltianos, S. Logothetidis, W. Perrie, S. Romani, R. J. Potter, M. Sharp, P. French, G. Dearden, K. G. Watkins, Appl. Phys. A 2009, 94, 641

    2009

  25. [33]

    C. L. Sajti, R. Sattari, B. N. Chichkov, S. Barcikowski, J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 2421

    2010

  26. [34]

    Nolte, C

    S. Nolte, C. Momma, H. Jacobs, A. Tünnermann, B. N. Chichkov, B. Wellegehausen, H. Welling, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 1997, 14, 2716

    1997

  27. [35]

    Mafuné, J

    F. Mafuné, J. Kohno, Y. Takeda, T. Kondow, H. Sawabe, J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 9111

    2000

  28. [36]

    Rehbock, V

    C. Rehbock, V. Merk, L. Gamrad, R. Streubel, S. Barcikowski, Phys Chem Chem Phys 2013, 15, 3057

    2013

  29. [37]

    Besner, A

    S. Besner, A. V. Kabashin, M. Meunier, Appl. Phys. A 2007, 88, 269

    2007

  30. [38]

    Zhang, B

    D. Zhang, B. Gökce, S. Barcikowski, Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 3990

    2017

  31. [39]

    Sylvestre, A

    J.-P. Sylvestre, A. V. Kabashin, E. Sacher, M. Meunier, J. H. T. Luong, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 7176

    2004

  32. [40]

    Amendola, M

    V. Amendola, M. Meneghetti, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2009, 11, 3805

    2009

  33. [41]

    Maximova, A

    K. Maximova, A. Aristov, M. Sentis, A. V. Kabashin, Nanotechnology 2015, 26, 065601

    2015

  34. [42]

    Sylvestre, S

    J.-P. Sylvestre, S. Poulin, A. V. Kabashin, E. Sacher, M. Meunier, J. H. T. Luong, J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 16864

    2004

  35. [43]

    Bärsch, J

    N. Bärsch, J. Jakobi, S. Weiler, S. Barcikowski, Nanotechnology 2009, 20, 445603

    2009

  36. [44]

    Streubel, S

    R. Streubel, S. Barcikowski, B. Gökce, Opt. Lett. 2016, 41, 1486

    2016

  37. [45]

    G. I. Tselikov, G. A. Ermolaev, A. A. Popov, G. V. Tikhonowski, D. A. Panova, A. S. Taradin, A. A. Vyshnevyy, A. V. Syuy, S. M. Klimentov, S. M. Novikov, A. B. Evlyukhin, A. V. Kabashin, A. V. Arsenin, K. S. Novoselov, V. S. Volkov, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2022, 119, e2208830119

    2022

  38. [46]

    Kögler, Y

    M. Kögler, Y. V. Ryabchikov, S. Uusitalo, A. Popov, A. Popov, G. Tselikov, A. Välimaa, A. Al‐Kattan, J. Hiltunen, R. Laitinen, P. Neubauer, I. Meglinski, A. V. Kabashin, J. Biophotonics 2018, 11, e201700225

    2018

  39. [47]

    I. V. Zelepukin, A. A. Popov, V. O. Shipunova, G. V. Tikhonowski, A. B. Mirkasymov, E. A. Popova-Kuznetsova, S. M. Klimentov, A. V. Kabashin, S. M. Deyev, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2021, 120, 111717

    2021

  40. [48]

    Zhang, M

    J. Zhang, M. Chaker, D. Ma, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 489, 138

    2017

  41. [49]

    Farooq, C

    S. Farooq, C. V. P. Vital, G. Tikhonowski, A. A. Popov, S. M. Klimentov, L. A.G. Malagon, R. E. De Araujo, A. V. Kabashin, D. Rativa, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2023, 252, 112203

    2023

  42. [50]

    A. A. Popov, G. Tselikov, N. Dumas, C. Berard, K. Metwally, N. Jones, A. Al -Kattan, B. Larrat, D. Braguer, S. Mensah, A. Da Silva, M.-A. Estève, A. V. Kabashin, Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1194

    2019

  43. [51]

    A. V. Kabashin, M. Meunier, C. Kingston, J. H. T. Luong, J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 4527

    2003

  44. [52]

    Intartaglia, K

    R. Intartaglia, K. Bagga, M. Scotto, A. Diaspro, F. Brandi, Opt. Mater. Express 2012, 2, 510

    2012

  45. [53]

    Ibrahimkutty, P

    S. Ibrahimkutty, P. Wagener, A. Menzel, A. Plech, S. Barcikowski, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 101, 103104

    2012

  46. [54]

    Al -Kattan, G

    A. Al -Kattan, G. Tselikov, K. Metwally, A. A. Popov, S. Mensah, A. V. Kabashin, Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 592

    2021

  47. [55]

    H. J. Jung, M. Y. Choi, J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 14647

    2014

  48. [56]

    Blandin, K

    P. Blandin, K. A. Maximova, M. B. Gongalsky, J. F. Sanchez -Royo, V. S. Chirvony, M. Sentis, V. Yu. Timoshenko, A. V. Kabashin, J. Mater. Chem. B 2013, 1, 2489

    2013

  49. [57]

    Chichkov, Appl

    B. Chichkov, Appl. Phys. A 2022, 128, 1015

    2022

  50. [58]

    I. S. Novikov, K. Gubaev, E. V. Podryabinkin, A. V. Shapeev, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 2021, 2, 025002

    2021

  51. [59]

    A. V. Shapeev, Multiscale Model. Simul. 2016, 14, 1153

    2016

  52. [60]

    A. S. Chernikov, G. I. Tselikov, M. Yu. Gubin, A. V. Shesterikov, K. S. Khorkov, A. V. Syuy, G. A. Ermolaev, I. S. Kazantsev, R. I. Romanov, A. M. Markeev, A. A. Popov, G. V. Tikhonowski, O. O. Kapitanova, D. A. Kochuev, A. Yu. Leksin, D. I. Tselikov, A. V. Arsenin, A. V. Kaba...

    2023

  53. [61]

    Monga, S

    D. Monga, S. Sharma, N. P. Shetti, S. Basu, K. R. Reddy, T. M. Aminabhavi, Mater. Today Chem. 2021, 19, 100399

    2021

  54. [62]

    Sharma, S

    S. Sharma, S. Basu, Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020, 231, 115916

    2020

  55. [63]

    Fujishima, K

    A. Fujishima, K. Honda, Nature 1972, 238, 37

    1972

  56. [64]

    Mehta, A

    A. Mehta, A. Mishra, S. Basu, N. P. Shetti, K. R. Reddy, T. A. Saleh, T. M. Aminabhavi, J. Environ. Manage. 2019, 250, 109486

    2019

  57. [65]

    Monga, D

    D. Monga, D. Ilager, N. P. Shetti, S. Basu, T. M. Aminabhavi, J. Environ. Manage. 2020, 274, 111208

    2020

  58. [66]

    G. A. Ermolaev, Y. V. Stebunov, A. A. Vyshnevyy, D. E. Tatarkin, D. I. Yakubovsky, S. M. Novikov, D. G. Baranov, T. Shegai, A. Y. Nikitin, A. V. Arsenin, V. S. Volkov, Npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2020, 4, 21

    2020

  59. [67]

    Y. Li, H. Wang, L. Xie, Y. Liang, G. Hong, H. Dai, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 7296

    2011

  60. [68]

    A. F. Ismail, P. S. Goh, H. Hasbullah, F. Aziz, Advanced Materials for Wastewater Treatment and Desalination: Fundamentals to Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2022

    2022

  61. [69]

    Kalantar-Zadeh, J

    K. Kalantar-Zadeh, J. Z. Ou, ACS Sens. 2016, 1, 5

    2016

  62. [70]

    H. J. Kim, J. H. Lee, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2014, 192, 607

    2014

  63. [71]

    Joshi, T

    N. Joshi, T. Hayasaka, Y. Liu, H. Liu, O. N. Oliveira, L. Lin, Microchim. Acta 2018, 185, 213

    2018

  64. [72]

    Presutti, T

    D. Presutti, T. Agarwal, A. Zarepour, N. Celikkin, S. Hooshmand, C. Nayak, M. Ghomi, A. Zarrabi, M. Costantini, B. Behera, T. K. Maiti, Materials 2022, 15, 337

    2022

  65. [73]

    Goswami, G

    P. Goswami, G. Gupta, Mater. Today Chem. 2022, 23, 100726

    2022

  66. [74]

    X. Liu, H. L. Shuai, Y. J. Liu, K. J. Huang, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2016, 235, 603

    2016

  67. [75]

    K. J. Huang, Y. J. Liu, J. T. Cao, H. B. Wang, RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 36742

    2014

  68. [76]

    K. J. Huang, H. L. Shuai, J. Z. Zhang, Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 77, 69

    2016

  69. [77]

    Jariwala, S

    D. Jariwala, S. L. Howell, K. S. Chen, J. Kang, V. K. Sangwan, S. A. Filippone, R. Turrisi, T. J. Marks, L. J. Lauhon, M. C. Hersam, Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 497

    2016

  70. [78]

    Jiang, D

    H. Jiang, D. Ren, H. Wang, Y. Hu, S. Guo, H. Yuan, P. Hu, L. Zhang, C. Li, Adv. Mater. 2015, 27, 3687

    2015

  71. [79]

    C. Zhao, J. Kong, X. Yao, X. Tang, Y. Dong, S. L. Phua, X. Lu, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 6392

    2014

  72. [80]

    Kumar, D

    N. Kumar, D. Mishra, A. Kumar, B. Dash, R. K. Mishra, J. Song, S. H. Jin, Appl. Sci. Switz. 2023, 13, 3678

    2023

  73. [81]

    S. K. Park, S. H. Yu, S. Woo, B. Quan, D. C. Lee, M. K. Kim, Y. E. Sung, Y. Piao, J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. 2013, 42, 2399

    2013

  74. [82]

    Z. Wang, H. Wu, G. W. Burr, C. S. Hwang, K. L. Wang, Q. Xia, J. J. Yang, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2020, 5, 173

    2020

  75. [83]

    J. Tang, F. Yuan, X. Shen, Z. Wang, M. Rao, Y. He, Y. Sun, X. Li, W. Zhang, Y. Li, B. Gao, H. Qian, G. Bi, S. Song, J. J. Yang, H. Wu, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, DOI 10.1002/adma.201902761

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    M. K. Song, J. H. Kang, X. Zhang, W. Ji, A. Ascoli, I. Messaris, A. S. Demirkol, B. Dong, S. Aggarwal, W. Wan, S. M. Hong, S. G. Cardwell, I. Boybat, J. S. Seo, J. S. Lee, M. Lanza, H. Yeon, M. Onen, J. Li, B. Yildiz, J. A. del Alamo, S. Kim, S. Choi, G. Milano, C. Ricciardi, ...

    2023

  77. [85]

    P. Liu, H. Luo, X. Yin, X. Wang, X. He, J. Zhu, H. Xue, W. Mao, Y. Pu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2022, 121, DOI 10.1063/5.0127880

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    Zhang, H

    X. Zhang, H. Qiao, X. Nian, Y. Huang, X. Pang, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 2016, 27, 7609

    2016

  79. [87]

    Y. Yan, B. Sun, D. Ma, Chem. Phys. Lett. 2015, 638, 103

    2015

  80. [88]

    P. Li, B. Sun, X. Zhang, G. Zhou, Y. Xia, L. Gan, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Mater. Lett. 2017, 202, 13

    2017

  81. [89]

    Jamilpanah, I

    L. Jamilpanah, I. Khademi, J. Shoa e Gharehbagh, S. Aziz Mohseni, S. M. Mohseni, J. Alloys Compd. 2020, 835, 155291

    2020

  82. [90]

    R. Kaur, K. P. Singh, S. K. Tripathi, J. Alloys Compd. 2022, 905, 164103

    2022

  83. [91]

    R. Kaur, K. P. Singh, S. K. Tripathi, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 2020, 31, 19974

    2020

  84. [92]

    Y. Li, J. Cao, J. Chen, Q. Xu, X. Liu, J. Qiu, Y. Chen, H. Wang, M. Wang, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 2023, 44, 2047

    2023

  85. [93]

    M. E. Pereira, R. Martins, E. Fortunato, P. Barquinha, A. Kiazadeh, Neuromorphic Comput. Eng. 2023, 3, 022002

    2023

  86. [94]

    Y. Zhai, X. Yang, F. Wang, Z. Li, G. Ding, Z. Qiu, Y. Wang, Y. Zhou, S. T. Han, Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, DOI 10.1002/adma.201803563

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    Y. Tian, S. Zhang, W. Tan, Appl. Nanosci. Switz. 2022, 12, 2023

    2022

  88. [96]

    M. Chen, S. J. Ki, X. Liang, ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 2023, 5, 3830

    2023

  89. [97]

    E. A. Konstantinova, A. A. Minnekhanov, G. V. Trusov, V. G. Kytin, Nanotechnology 2020, 31, 345207

    2020

  90. [98]

    J. Xia, Y. Ge, D. Zhao, J. Di, M. Ji, S. Yin, H. Li, R. Chen, CrystEngComm 2015, 17, 3645

    2015

  91. [99]

    X. Zou, J. Zhang, X. Zhao, Z. Zhang, Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 383, 123084

    2020

  92. [100]

    Q. Li, N. Zhang, Y. Yang, G. Wang, D. H. L. Ng, Langmuir 2014, 30, 8965

    2014

  93. [101]

    H. Chen, T. Liu, Z. Su, L. Shang, G. Wei, Nanoscale Horiz. 2018, 3, 74

    2018

  94. [102]

    Cheng, J

    L. Cheng, J. Liu, X. Gu, H. Gong, X. Shi, T. Liu, C. Wang, X. Wang, G. Liu, H. Xing, W. Bu, B. Sun, Z. Liu, Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 1886

    2014

  95. [103]

    D. An, J. Fu, B. Zhang, N. Xie, G. Nie, H. Ågren, M. Qiu, H. Zhang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2101625

    2021

  96. [104]

    D. Xu, Z. Li, L. Li, J. Wang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2000712

    2020

  97. [105]

    Y. Zhao, B. -Q. Chen, R. K. Kankala, S. -B. Wang, A. -Z. Chen, ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 6, 4799

    2020

  98. [106]

    G. Liu, J. Zou, Q. Tang, X. Yang, Y. Zhang, Q. Zhang, W. Huang, P. Chen, J. Shao, X. Dong, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 40077

    2017

  99. [107]

    Zhang, X

    H. Zhang, X. Zeng, Z. Li, ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2020, 3, 6529

    2020

  100. [108]

    X. Song, Q. Huang, Y. Yang, L. Ma, W. Liu, C. Ou, Q. Chen, T. Zhao, Z. Xiao, M. Wang, Y. Jiang, Y. Yang, J. Zhang, Y. Nan, W. Wu, K. Ai, Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, 2301585

    2023

  101. [109]

    J. Shao, J. Zhang, C. Jiang, J. Lin, P. Huang, Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 400, 126009

    2020

  102. [110]

    X. Han, J. Huang, H. Lin, Z. Wang, P. Li, Y. Chen, Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7, 1701394

    2018

  103. [111]

    Valencia, C

    C. Valencia, C. H. Valencia, F. Zuluaga, M. E. Valencia, J. H. Mina, C. D. Grande -Tovar, Molecules 2018, 23, 2651

    2018

  104. [112]

    Silva, I

    M. Silva, I. S. Pinho, J. A. Covas, N. M. Alves, M. C. Paiva, Funct. Compos. Mater. 2021, 2, 8

    2021

  105. [113]

    P. G. Zotev, Y. Wang, D. Andres‐Penares, T. Severs‐Millard, S. Randerson, X. Hu, L. Sortino, C. Louca, M. Brotons‐Gisbert, T. Huq, S. Vezzoli, R. Sapienza, T. F. Krauss, B. D. Gerardot, A. I. Tartakovskii, Laser Photonics Rev. 2023, 17, 2200957

    2023

  106. [114]

    M. R. Jobayr, E. M. T. Salman, Chin. J. Phys. 2021, 74, 270

    2021

  107. [115]

    W. Y. Lee, M. S. Kang, J. W. Choi, S. H. Kim, N. W. Park, G. S. Kim, Y. H. Kim, S. K. Lee, Adv. Electron. Mater. 2023, 9, DOI 10.1002/aelm.202300170

    2023 doi

  108. [116]

    D. Qin, P. Yan, G. Ding, X. Ge, H. Song, G. Gao, Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2764

    2018

  109. [117]

    Zhang, H

    J. Zhang, H. J. Liu, L. Cheng, J. Wei, J. H. Liang, D. D. Fan, J. Shi, X. F. Tang, Q. J. Zhang, Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6452

    2014

  110. [118]

    Ghosh, U

    K. Ghosh, U. Singisetti, J. Appl. Phys. 2015, 118, DOI 10.1063/1.4932140

    2015 doi

  111. [119]

    Tarachand, G. S. Okram, B. K. De, S. Dam, S. Hussain, V. Sathe, U. Deshpande, A. Lakhani, Y. K. Kuo, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 37248

    2020

  112. [120]

    Y. X. Zhang, Y. K. Zhu, D. S. Song, J. Feng, Z. H. Ge, Chem. Commun. 2021, 57, 2555

    2021

  113. [121]

    Y. Zhou, N. Li, Y. Xin, X. Cao, S. Ji, P. Jin, J. Mater. Chem. C 2017, 5, 6251

    2017

  114. [122]

    J. C. Bulmahn, G. Tikhonowski, A. A. Popov, A. Kuzmin, S. M. Klimentov, A. V. Kabashin, P. N. Prasad, Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1463

    2020

  115. [123]

    A. Hahn, J. Laser MicroNanoengineering 2008, 3, 73

    2008

  116. [124]

    Popov, G

    A. Popov, G. Tikhonowski, P. Shakhov, E. Popova-Kuznetsova, G. Tselikov, R. Romanov, A. Markeev, S. Klimentov, A. Kabashin, Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 1672

    2022

  117. [125]

    Plimpton, J

    S. Plimpton, J. Comput. Phys. 1995, 117, 1

    1995

  118. [126]

    D. J. Evans, B. L. Holian, J. Chem. Phys. 1985, 83, 4069

    1985

  119. [127]

    Kresse, D

    G. Kresse, D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 1758

    1999

  120. [128]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865

    1996

  121. [129]

    P. E. Blöchl, Phys. Rev. B 1994, 50, 17953

    1994

  122. [130]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, H. Krieg, J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 132, 154104

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.