Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Nanoscale graphitization and defect evolution in silicon-vacancy center-containing nanodiamonds under high-pressure high-temperature annealing

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Nanodiamonds remain in the diamond phase up to 1800 K at 2 GPa and 2120 K at 4 GPa, and annealing just below those limits partially resolves the silicon-vacancy fine structure at 12 K.

desk verdict Useful, honest in situ XRD study of nanodiamond graphitization under HPHT, but the headline onset temperatures rest on an extrapolated calibration that needs error bars before the numbers are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10632 v1 pith:UEQJ3SXG submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics

M. De Feudis , B. Yavkin , L. Henry , K.O. Ho , M.-P. Adam , P. Goldner , F. Benedic , S. Desgreniers
show 1 more author
J.-F. Roch
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics
keywords nanodiamondsilicon-vacancycenterHPHTannealinggraphitizationinsituX-raydiffractionstrainrelaxationfinestructurephotoluminescence
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

Nanodiamonds containing silicon-vacancy color centers (single atomic defects with sharp optical emission useful for quantum technologies) usually carry internal lattice strain that broadens their spectral lines. This paper asks whether heating them under a few gigapascals of pressure can relax that strain without first converting the diamond to graphite. Using in situ X-ray diffraction during high-pressure, high-temperature annealing, it reports that graphitization begins around 1800 K at 2 GPa and 2120 K at 4 GPa for roughly 100–200 nm particles. Annealing at 1700 K and 2 GPa stays below that boundary and, in the particles examined, narrows the silicon-vacancy emission at 12 K from a broad 4.3 nm line to two narrow lines separated by about 3.2 meV. If these thresholds transfer to other growth routes, they give a usable processing window for improving quantum nanodiamonds without destroying the diamond lattice.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the calibrated high-pressure sample assembly and the in situ diffraction signal it produces. Nanodiamonds are packed between layers of sodium chloride containing a few platinum spheres inside a hexagonal boron nitride capsule; the salt disperses the particles and melts at a known pressure-dependent temperature, giving an internal thermometer up to its melting point (1425 K at 2 GPa, 1770 K at 4 GPa), while the hBN lattice provides a continuous pressure reading through its equation of state. The transition itself is signaled by the appearance of the graphite (002) reflection in energy-dispersive X-ray diffraction alongside the surviving diamond reflections. This combination converts the question of whether nanodiamonds survive HPHT annealing into two measured temperatures and makes those temperatures reproducible in off-beam annealing runs that use the same press conditions.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to repeat the 2 GPa heating run with an independent internal thermometer or a second known melting standard that melts above 1800 K while monitoring the graphite (002) reflection; if the reflection appears at a true sample temperature below roughly 1750 K, the reported window is too high. Equally decisive would be to run the same in situ protocol on the actual CVD-grown silicon-vacancy nanodiamonds and find graphitization below 1700 K at 2 GPa, which would break the transfer from the calibration material.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the diamond-to-graphite onset in nanodiamonds of about 100–200 nm under the applied HPHT heating protocol occurs at 1800 K at 2 GPa and 2120 K at 4 GPa, identified in situ by the emergence of the graphite (002) X-ray diffraction reflection while the diamond reflections (111), (220), and (311) are still present. It then uses this boundary to choose 1700 K at 2 GPa for 30 min as a safe annealing condition for CVD-grown silicon-vacancy nanodiamonds; the recovered particles keep a sharp diamond Raman line with no graphitic signature. Photoluminescence at 12 K from individual annealed particles shows two peaks at 735.8 nm and 737.2 nm with full widths at half maximum of 0.1 nm and 0.3 nm, separated by roughly 3.2 meV, a partial resolution of the silicon-vacancy fine structure that the as-grown particles do not show. The authors attribute this improvement to strain relaxation and defect reorganization during annealing, while noting that the details of the microscopic mechanism and the assignment of the two peaks are not yet settled.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on two transfers: the temperature scale above the salt-melting point is extrapolated from a power calibration rather than read from an internal thermometer, and the graphitization onset measured on commercial milled nanodiamonds is assumed to hold for the differently grown silicon-vacancy nanodiamonds used in the annealing tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HPHT annealing at 2 GPa and 1700 K for 30 minutes preserves the diamond lattice of 100–200 nm nanodiamonds, so defect recovery and strain relaxation can be performed well above the ambient-pressure annealing ceiling.
  • The measured onset gives a safety margin: graphite appears only after the 1800 K threshold at 2 GPa, so treatments up to at least 1700 K can be planned without continuous diffraction monitoring.
  • The same press calibration can be reused for off-beam HPHT runs, removing the need for synchrotron time during routine annealing of quantum nanodiamonds.
  • Silicon-vacancy emission after such annealing narrows from roughly 4.3 nm to 0.1–0.3 nm lines at 12 K, evidence that strain-induced inhomogeneous broadening is partially removed.
  • A 4 GPa run extends the stable regime to about 2120 K, suggesting that higher pressure raises the graphitization barrier for nanodiamonds as it does for bulk diamond.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference the paper leaves implicit is that the same processing window may apply to other group-IV color centers, such as germanium-vacancy or tin-vacancy emitters, since the strain-relaxation mechanism is not specific to silicon; a test on those centers would extend the result.
  • The measured onset was taken on commercial milled nanodiamonds, so a direct in situ run on the actual CVD-grown silicon-vacancy particles would show whether their different surface chemistry and defect density shift the graphitization threshold.
  • The unusually large inferred excited-state splitting (about 780 GHz, roughly three times the bulk value) hints that residual local strain, not thermal broadening, still dominates the optical response after annealing; annealing closer to the threshold or at 4 GPa might further narrow the lines.
  • Because the experiment did not isolate particle size, NaCl environment, and heating kinetics, a systematic study of dwell time at fixed pressure and temperature could map the kinetic boundary and possibly extend the practical window beyond the thermodynamic-onset values reported here.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports an in situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction study of the graphitization onset of nanodiamonds under high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) conditions, using a Paris-Edinburgh press. The authors determine that the diamond-to-graphite transition occurs at approximately 1800 K at 2 GPa and 2120 K at 4 GPa for nanodiamonds of about 100–200 nm, and they use these values to define a practical processing window for HPHT annealing. They then apply this window to CVD-grown SiV-containing nanodiamonds, showing via Raman and photoluminescence that annealing at 1700 K at 2 GPa preserves the diamond phase and leads to partial narrowing of the SiV fine structure at 12 K, which they interpret as evidence of strain relaxation.

Significance. If the reported graphitization onsets are reliable, this work provides the first direct experimental determination of a processing window for HPHT annealing of nanodiamonds, which is of direct practical relevance for optimizing color-center-based quantum emitters. The experimental design is thoughtful: the use of NaCl and hBN as internal calibrants, the sandwich-type sample assembly, and the combination of in situ XRD with ex situ Raman and photoluminescence are all strengths. The ex situ Raman verification of the off-beam annealed sample is a particularly valuable check. The potential impact on the quantum nanodiamond community is high, and the paper is generally well written, with several limitations explicitly acknowledged.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4 and §3.2] The reported graphitization onset temperatures of 1800 K at 2 GPa and 2120 K at 4 GPa rely on an extrapolation of the power-temperature calibration established below the NaCl melting point (1425 K at 2 GPa and 1770 K at 4 GPa). After NaCl melting, no internal thermometer remains active at the sample position; the temperature is inferred from electrical power using fits to data obtained below melting. The sentence in §2.4 stating that 'the onset of nanodiamond graphitization, as monitored by XRD, provided an additional high-temperature reference' is ambiguous: if the graphitization onset is used as an input for temperature calibration, then the reported onsets are not independent measurements; if it is an output, the extrapolation uncertainty is not quantified. The authors should provide a quantitative uncertainty budget for the extrapolated temperatures (e.g., propagation of the power-T fit residuals, sensitivity of the hBN equation of state to temperature, and a cross-check against the known NaCl melting points). Error bars on the onset temperatures are currently absent, and the statement that the selected annealing temperature of 1700 K is '100 K below' the onset is only meaningful if the uncertainty in the extrapolated temperature is small compared with that margin.
  2. [§2.1 and §3.5] The calibration experiments were performed on type-Ib milled nanodiamonds (approximately 129 nm) and the resulting processing window is then applied to CVD-grown SiV nanodiamonds (approximately 147 nm) with different surface chemistry and defect content. The Raman spectrum of the 1700 K annealed CVD-NDs shows no graphitic contribution, which is consistent with the calibration but does not prove that the graphitization onset is the same for the two materials. The authors should discuss the potential dependence of the onset on particle size, surface termination, and defect density, or explicitly state that the window is only directly validated for the material used in the calibration, with the CVD-ND result being a single demonstration.
  3. [§3.5] The claim of improved optical response and partial resolution of the SiV fine structure after HPHT annealing is based on photoluminescence spectra from a single nanodiamond particle (or a small cluster), as acknowledged in the text. Because the spectra may represent the collective emission of multiple SiV centers and the observed two-peak structure could arise from either strain-modified fine-structure splitting or sub-populations of centers with different ZPL energies, the evidence for 'strain relaxation' as the microscopic cause is not conclusive. The authors should either report statistics over multiple particles (e.g., linewidth distributions before and after annealing) or clearly restrict the claim to an illustrative case study in the abstract and conclusions, rather than presenting it as a general outcome.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] The mixture is written as 'H 4 /CH 4 ', which appears to be a typo; it should be 'H2/CH4' (or 'H₂/CH₄').
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains 'yellow cercles', which should be 'yellow circles'.
  3. [§2.3] The assembly description uses 'NaCL(Pt)-ND-NaCl(Pt)', but 'NaCL' should be 'NaCl'.
  4. [§2.4] The phrase 'compared that measured with a thermocouple' should be 'compared to that measured with a thermocouple'.
  5. [§3.2] The word 'determinated' should be 'determined' in the sentence about pressure determination.
  6. [Reference [7]] Reference [7] is incomplete: it lists 'G. Bayer, E. al, E. al, E. al and E. al', leaving the author list as 'E. al' placeholders. The full citation should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the graphitization onset is determined by direct XRD observation of graphite peaks, and the optical improvements are independent measured consequences rather than inputs.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper is the onset of diamond-to-graphite transformation at approximately 1800 K at 2 GPa and 2120 K at 4 GPa, identified by the appearance of the graphite (002) reflection in in situ energy-dispersive XRD patterns. This detection is an independent structural observable and is not defined in terms of the quantity it is used to establish. The pressure-temperature calibration uses NaCl melting points, the hBN equation of state, and a power-temperature relation calibrated up to NaCl melting; while the temperature above NaCl melting is extrapolated, that is an experimental uncertainty or correctness risk, not a circular reduction of the graphitization onset to the calibration itself. The Raman spectra on the recovered off-beam annealed sample confirm the absence of graphitic carbon under the selected 1700 K condition, and the photoluminescence data are ex situ optical measurements that are consequences of the annealing treatment, not inputs to the phase-boundary determination. Self-citations such as the CVD synthesis method (Ref. [17]) and the beamline setup (Ref. [38]) are methodological references and are not load-bearing for the graphitization claim. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is repackaged as new. The paper is self-contained in its central determination, so the appropriate circularity score is low, reflecting only minor non-load-bearing self-citations and no actual circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No theoretical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the temperature assignment above the NaCl melting point and on transferring a kinetic onset measured on type-Ib nanodiamonds to CVD-grown SiV nanodiamonds.

free parameters (1)
  • Power-temperature extrapolation coefficients = Not stated in main text; equations in Supplementary S3
    The temperatures at which graphitization is observed (1800 K at 2 GPa, 2120 K at 4 GPa) lie above the NaCl melting points used as internal temperature anchors. The internal temperature is obtained by extrapolating a power-temperature calibration fitted up to the melting point, so the onset values depend on this extrapolation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Temperature above the NaCl melting point is obtained by extrapolating the power-temperature calibration established below melting.
    The graphitization onset is observed above the last direct temperature anchor; the calibration curves in Fig. 4 stop at the melting points, so the reported onset temperatures rely on extrapolation (Section 3.2, Supplementary S3).
  • domain assumption The graphitization onset measured on type-Ib milled nanodiamonds (about 129 nm) applies to CVD-grown SiV nanodiamonds (about 147 nm) with different surface and defect chemistry.
    Calibration runs used commercial Ib-NDs (Section 2.1), while the annealing window is applied to CVD SiV NDs; the paper acknowledges particle-size and medium effects cannot be isolated (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The first XRD step at which the graphite (002) reflection appears defines the graphitization onset; the true onset could lie between temperature steps.
    In situ ED-XRD was collected at temperature steps (Sections 2.4 and 3.2); the reported onset is the first step with detectable graphite, an upper bound that depends on step size and detection sensitivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanoscale graphitization and defect evolution in silicon-vacancy center-containing nanodiamonds under high-pressure high-temperature annealing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UEQJ3SXG

@misc{pith2026260810632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanoscale graphitization and defect evolution in silicon-vacancy center-containing nanodiamonds under high-pressure high-temperature annealing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UEQJ3SXG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10632}
}
read the original abstract

Group-IV color centers, such as the silicon-vacancy (SiV) defect, are highly promising for solid-state quantum technologies. However, nanodiamonds typically exhibit significant lattice strain and structural disorder, which degrade their optical properties and hinder the resolution of the fine spectral structure at cryogenic temperatures. High-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) annealing offers a potential route to relax internal strain, although the phase stability of diamond at the nanoscale under such conditions remains poorly constrained. Here, we investigate the structural evolution of nanodiamonds during HPHT annealing using a Paris-Edinburgh press coupled with in situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction at SOLEIL. A dedicated sample assembly combining nanodiamonds - NaCl - Pt enabled accurate pressure-temperature calibration and real-time monitoring of phase transformations. The diffraction data reveal that the onset of diamond-to-graphite transition occurs at approximately 1800 K at 2 GPa and 2120 K at 4 GPa under the applied HPHT heating protocol. These experimentally determined graphitization onsets define a practical pressure-temperature processing window for HPHT annealing of nanodiamonds while avoiding detectable graphitization and provide a calibrated framework for reliable off-beam annealing treatments that avoid graphitization. Photoluminescence measurements on samples annealed below the graphitization threshold show improved optical response, with partial resolution of the SiV fine structure at 12 K. These optical measurements suggest a relationship between nanoscale phase stability and the optical response of individual SiV-containing nanodiamonds following HPHT annealing. The experimentally established HPHT processing window provides a practical framework for the controlled processing of quantum nanodiamonds while avoiding graphitization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bradac, W

    C. Bradac, W. Gao, J. Forneris, M.E. Trusheim, I. Aharonovich, Nat. Commun. 10 (1) (2019) 5625

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Müller, C

    T. Müller, C. Hepp, B. Pingault, E. Neu, S. Gsell, M. Schreck, H. Sternschulte, D. Steinmüller-Nethl, C. Becher, M. Atatüre, Nat. Commun. 5 (1) (2014) 3328

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Flatae, F

    A.M. Flatae, F. Sledz, H. Kambalathmana, S. Lagomarsino, H. Wang, N. Gelli, S. Sciortino, E. W ¨orner, C. Wild, B. Butz, M. Agio, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124 (9) (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    B.C. Rose, D. Huang, Z.-H. Zhang, P. Stevenson, A.M. Tyryshkin, S. Sangtawesin, S. Srinivasan, L. Loudin, M.L. Markham, A.M. Edmonds, D.J. Twitchen, S.A. Lyon, N.P. de Leon, Science 361 (6397) (2018) 60 – 63

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bayer, R

    G. Bayer, R. Berghaus, S. Sachero, A.B. Filipovski, L. Antoniuk, N. Lettner, R. Waltrich, M. Klotz, P. Maier, V. Agafonov, A. Kubanek, Commun. Phys. 6 (1) (2023) 300 . M. De Feudis et al. Carbon 260 (2026) 121960 11

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    B. Yang, J. Li, L. Guo, N. Huang, L. Liu, Z. Zhai, W. Long, X. Jiang, CrystEngComm 20 (8) (2018) 1158 – 1167

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A Quantum Repeater Platform based on Single SiV$^-$ Centers in Diamond with Cavity-Assisted, All-Optical Spin Access and Fast Coherent Driving

    G. Bayer, E. al, E. al, E. al and E. al, preprint available arXiv:2210.16157

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [8]

    Liu, M.N.A

    W. Liu, M.N.A. Alam, Y. Liu, V.N. Agafonov, H. Qi, K. Koynov, V.A. Davydov, R. Uzbekov, U. Kaiser, T. Lasser, F. Jelezko, A. Ermakova, T. Weil, Nano Lett. 22 (7) (2022) 2881 – 2888

    work page 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Vindolet, M.-P

    B. Vindolet, M.-P. Adam, L. Toraille, M. Chipaux, A. Hilberer, G. Dupuy, L. Razinkovas, A. Alkauskas, G. Thiering, A. Gali, M. De Feudis, M.W. Ngandeu Ngambou, J. Achard, A. Tallaire, M. Schmidt, C. Becher, J.-F. Roch, Phys. Rev. B 106 (21) (2022) 214109

    2022

  2. [10]

    Saito, T

    Y. Saito, T. Horai, Y. Umekawa, R. Shimono, Y. Tomoi, T. Matsuda, Y. Makino, Y. Minowa, H. Ishihara, M. Ashida, ACS Nano 20 (13) (2026) 10617 – 10627

    2026

  3. [11]

    J. Shin, S. Kim, C.W. Jung, S. Koh, E.I. Kauppinen, M. Lee, S.J. Yoo, H.S. Jung, J. H. Shim, D.H. Kim, I. Jeon, Adv. Energy Sustain. Res. 7 (1) (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    Qin, X.-G

    J.-X. Qin, X.-G. Yang, C.-F. Lv, Y.-Z. Li, K.-K. Liu, J.-H. Zang, X. Yang, L. Dong, C.- X. Shan, Mater. Des. 210 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Makino, T

    Y. Makino, T. Mahiko, M. Liu, A. Tsurui, T. Yoshikawa, S. Nagamachi, S. Tanaka, K. Hokamoto, M. Ashida, M. Fujiwara, N. Mizuochi, M. Nishikawa, Diam. Relat. Mater. 112 (2021) 108248

    2021

  6. [14]

    Kromka, M

    A. Kromka, M. Varga, K. Aubrechtov ´a Dragounov ´a, O. Bab ˇcenko, R. Pfeifer, A. M. Flatae, F. Sledz, F. Akther, M. Agio, ˇ S. Potocký, ˇ S. Stehlík, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 7 (21) (2024) 24766 – 24777

    2024

  7. [15]

    N. Nunn, M. Torelli, G. McGuire, O. Shenderova, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 21 (1) (2017) 1 – 9

    2017

  8. [16]

    Zeleneev, S.V

    A.I. Zeleneev, S.V. Bolshedvorskii, V.V. Soshenko, O.R. Rubinas, A.S. Garanina, S. G. Lyapin, V.N. Agafonov, R.E. Uzbekov, O.S. Kudryavtsev, V.N. Sorokin, A. N. Smolyaninov, V.A. Davydov, A.V. Akimov, Quant. Electron. 50 (3) (2020) 299

    2020

  9. [17]

    De Feudis, A

    M. De Feudis, A. Tallaire, L. Nicolas, O. Brinza, P. Goldner, G. H ´etet, F. B ´en ´edic, J. Achard, Adv. Mater. Interfac. 7 (2) (2019) 1901408

    2019

  10. [18]

    Eldemrdash, G

    S. Eldemrdash, G. Thalassinos, A. Alzahrani, Q. Sun, E. Walsh, E. Grant, H. Abe, T. L. Greaves, T. Ohshima, P. Cigler, P. Mat ˇejí ˇcek, D.A. Simpson, A.D. Greentree, G. Bryant, B.C. Gibson, P. Reineck, Carbon 206 (2023) 268 – 276

    2023

  11. [19]

    Hamilton, D

    S. Hamilton, D. Regan, L. Payne, P. Borri, W. Langbein, Carbon 228 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    R. Dou, G. Zhu, W.-H. Leong, X. Feng, Z. Li, C. Lin, S. Wang, Q. Li, Carbon 203 (2023) 534 – 541

    2023

  13. [21]

    Romshin, O.S

    A.M. Romshin, O.S. Kudryavtsev, E.A. Ekimov, A.B. Shkarin, D. Rattenbacher, M. V. Rakhlin, A.A. Toropov, I.I. Vlasov, JETP Lett. 112 (1) (2020) 13 – 16

    2020

  14. [22]

    Ekimov, M.V

    E.A. Ekimov, M.V. Kondrin, V.S. Krivobok, A.A. Khomich, I.I. Vlasov, R. A. Khmelnitskiy, T. Iwasaki, M. Hatano, Diam. Relat. Mater. 93 (2019) 75 – 83

    2019

  15. [23]

    Zhang, M

    T. Zhang, M. Gupta, J. Jing, Z. Wang, X. Guo, Y. Zhu, Y.C. Yiu, T.K.C. Hui, Q. Wang, K.H. Li, Z. Chu, J. Mater. Chem. C 10 (37) (2022) 13734 – 13740

    2022

  16. [24]

    Lindner, A

    S. Lindner, A. Bommer, A. Muzha, A. Krueger, L. Gines, S. Mandal, O. Williams, E. Londero, A. Gali, C. Becher, New J. Phys. 20 (11) (2018) 115002

    2018

  17. [25]

    Assumpcao, C

    D.R. Assumpcao, C. Jin, M. Sutula, S.W. Ding, P. Pham, C.M. Knaut, M.K. Bhaskar, A. Panday, A.M. Day, D. Renaud, M.D. Lukin, E. Hu, B. Machielse, M. Loncar, Appl. Phys. Lett. 123 (24) (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Ekimov, M.V

    E.A. Ekimov, M.V. Kondrin, Phys. Usp. 60 (6) (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Iwasaki, Y

    T. Iwasaki, Y. Miyamoto, T. Taniguchi, P. Siyushev, M.H. Metsch, F. Jelezko, M. Hatano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (25) (2017) 253601

    2017

  20. [28]

    Hao, Z.-X

    Q. Hao, Z.-X. He, N. Zuo, Y. Chen, X. Xing, X. Zhang, X. Zhuang, Z. Shi, X. Chen, J.- G. Guo, G.-Q. Liu, X. Liu, Y. Ma, arXiv:2510.26605 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    N. Nunn, A. Marek, M.D. Torelli, A.I. Smirnov, O.A. Shenderova, Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology 4 (2025), 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Q. Li, J. Zhang, J. Liu, Y. Tian, W. Liang, L. Zheng, L. Zhou, D. He, Diam. Relat. Mater. 128 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Y. Bao, M. Gulka, P. Kumar, J. Copak, P. Balasubramanian, Y. Mindarava, R. Blinder, M. Olney-Fraser, H. Wen, H. Spanielova, H.Z.J. Zeng, B. Whitefield, I. Aharonovich, J. Hruby, F. Jelezko, J.D. Belnap, S.L.Y. Chang, P. Cigler, Adv. Funct. Mater. 36 (12) (2026) e20907

    2026

  24. [32]

    Zaïtsev, Optical Properties of Diamond: a Data Handbook, Springer, 2001

    A.M. Zaïtsev, Optical Properties of Diamond: a Data Handbook, Springer, 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    Iwasaki, in: C.E

    T. Iwasaki, in: C.E. Nebel, et al. (Eds.), Semiconductors and Semimetals, Elsevier, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    De Feudis, PhD Thesis, University of Salento (Italy) and University of Sorbonne Paris Nord (France), 2018

    M. De Feudis, PhD Thesis, University of Salento (Italy) and University of Sorbonne Paris Nord (France), 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    X. Yan, J. Wei, J. Guo, C. Hua, J. Liu, L. Chen, L. Hei, C. Li, Diam. Relat. Mater. 73 (2017) 39 – 46

    2017

  28. [36]

    Petit, J.-C

    T. Petit, J.-C. Arnault, H.A. Girard, M. Sennour, P. Bergonzo, Phys. Rev. B 84 (23) (2011) 233407

    2011

  29. [37]

    Balmer, J.R

    R.S. Balmer, J.R. Brandon, S.L. Clewes, H.K. Dhillon, J.M. Dodson, I. Friel, P. N. Inglis, T.D. Madgwick, M.L. Markham, T.P. Mollart, N. Perkins, G.A. Scarsbrook, D.J. Twitchen, A.J. Whitehead, J.J. Wilman, S.M. Woollard, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21 (36) (2009) 364221

    2009

  30. [38]

    Henry, N

    L. Henry, N. Guignot, A. King, E. Giovenco, J.-P. Deslandes, J.-P. Itie, J. Synchrotron Radiat. 29 (3) (2022) 853 – 861

    2022

  31. [39]

    Boulard, A

    E. Boulard, A. King, N. Guignot, J.P. Deslandes, Y. Le Godec, J.P. Perrillat, A. Clark, G. Morard, J.P. Iti ´e, J. Synchrotron Radiat. 25 (Pt 3) (2018) 818 – 825

    2018

  32. [40]

    Akella, S.N

    J. Akella, S.N. Vaidya, G.C. Kennedy, Phys. Rev. 185 (3) (1969) 1135 – 1140

    1969

  33. [41]

    Le Godec, D

    Y. Le Godec, D. Martinez-Garcia, V.L. Solozhenko, M. Mezouar, G. Syfosse, J. M. Besson, J. Phys. Chem. Solid. 61 (12) (2000) 1935 – 1938

    2000

  34. [42]

    Brown, J

    J.M. Brown, J. Appl. Phys. 86 (10) (1999) 5801 – 5808

    1999

  35. [43]

    Matsui, Y

    M. Matsui, Y. Higo, Y. Okamoto, T. Irifune, K.-I. Funakoshi, Am. Mineral. 97 (10) (2012) 1670 – 1675

    2012

  36. [44]

    Errandonea, Phys

    D. Errandonea, Phys. Rev. B 87 (5) (2013) 054108

    2013

  37. [45]

    Lespade, R

    P. Lespade, R. Al-jishi, M.S. Dresselhaus, Carbon 20 (1982) 427 – 431

    1982

  38. [46]

    Y. Yue, M. Wang, Y. Liu, R. Guo, H. Zhang, H. Xie, Y.S. Ang, S. Fang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 128 (5) (2026) . M. De Feudis et al. Carbon 260 (2026) 121960 12

    2026

Pith tools

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