Surface nucleation of the paraelectric phase in ferroelectric BaTiO3: Atomic scale mapping

Hemaprabha Elangovan; Maya Barzilay; Yachin Ivry

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 7 references

Surface nucleation of the paraelectric phase in ferroelectric BaTiO3: Atomic scale mapping

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ferroelectric-to-paraelectric transition in BaTiO3 starts with ~0.8-nm cubic nuclei at the crystal surface and then grows inward.

desk verdict Genuinely new observation, but the projection-averaging problem undermines the unit-cell classification and the energy numbers do not add up. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07276 v1 pith:UFQHTJ6A submitted 2019-08-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Maya Barzilay , Hemaprabha Elangovan , Yachin Ivry This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall

keywords ferroelectricBaTiO3paraelectricphasetransitionnucleationandgrowthhigh-resolutiontransmissionelectronmicroscopydipole-momentmappingCurietemperaturesurface

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 establishes that the ferroelectric-to-paraelectric transition in 50-nm BaTiO3 crystals is a surface-initiated nucleation-and-growth process. Variable-temperature high-resolution electron microscopy shows that the crystal is fully tetragonal below the transition, and the first paraelectric cubic unit cells appear near the surface as nuclei only about two unit cells (0.8 nm) across. With further heating these nuclei merge and the cubic phase advances into the bulk as a sidewalk. From the observed critical nucleus size, the authors extract a nucleation barrier of 2.13 eV and show that mechanical strain, not depolarization energy, dominates that barrier. The result matters because it puts the thermal phase transition in the same quantitative nucleation language used for electric-field-driven domain switching.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the critical cubic nucleus of paraelectric BaTiO3 embedded in the tetragonal ferroelectric host. The argument combines atomic-scale classification of unit cells from Ti off-centering displacements with the classical nucleation balance $\Delta G = -a^3 \Delta G_V + 6a^2\gamma$, whose maximum yields $\Delta G^* = 2(a^*)^2\gamma$ at the critical size $a^*$. To assign the barrier's origin, the paper adds an elastic strain energy $S = \tfrac{1}{2}VE\epsilon^2$ for a 0.8-nm cubic box in the tetragonal matrix and a standard electrostatic depolarization estimate, showing that the mechanical term dominates. These pieces together translate the visual observation of surface nuclei into a quantitative barrier.

What would settle it

Cool the same 50-nm BaTiO3 particle back through the transition while imaging: a true thermodynamic surface-nucleation mechanism should produce cubic islands at the surface on heating and make them shrink from the bulk side on cooling at the same temperatures, whereas a beam-induced or projection artifact would not show symmetric reversibility and would depend on electron dose or sample tilt. Alternatively, compare the per-unit-cell HRTEM classification with 4D-STEM nanodiffraction maps on the same area to see whether the 'cubic' unit cells are genuinely cubic rather than a projection artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the tetragonal-to-cubic transition in BaTiO3 proceeds by inhomogeneous surface nucleation of the paraelectric phase, followed by inward growth. The evidence is atomic-scale mapping of the Ti off-centering displacement (22 ± 5 pm in the tetragonal phase), which lets the authors label individual unit cells as tetragonal or cubic in HRTEM images taken while the temperature is slowly raised from 373 K to 383 K. First cubic nuclei of about 1 nm appear at 375 K near the surface; more appear by 377 K; by 379–383 K they merge and a cubic sidewalk grows inward, converting about 40% of the material by 383 K. Using classical nucleation theory with a critical nucleus size of two unit cells and a surface energy of 1.07 eV per unit-cell area, the paper obtains $\Delta G^* = 2.13$ eV for the nucleation barrier, and an elastic strain energy estimate (about 1.7–4 eV) far exceeding the 0.06 eV depolarization term. The authors therefore conclude that mechanical interactions dominate the nucleation barrier.

Load-bearing premise

The whole narrative depends on the assumption that a ~22 pm Ti off-centering displacement extracted from TEM images averaged through a 50-nm-thick crystal can correctly classify each unit cell as tetragonal or cubic; if that classification fails, the observed surface nuclei and sidewalk are not actually distinct phase regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The tetragonal–cubic transition in intermediate-size BaTiO3 single crystals is a nucleation-and-growth process with a well-defined critical nucleus, so phase coexistence over a roughly 10 K window is an expected part of the transition rather than a sample artifact.
The critical nucleus is only about two unit cells, close to theoretical predictions for electric-field-driven domain-wall nucleation, suggesting that thermal and field-driven ferroelectric nucleation may share a common underlying mechanism.
Because nuclei appear at the surface, surface termination, roughness, and defects should control where and when the transition starts in nanoscale ferroelectrics.
Mechanical strain dominates the nucleation barrier (elastic terms of roughly 1.7–4 eV versus 0.06 eV depolarization), so strain engineering should be able to raise or lower the effective transition temperature by changing the cost of forming a cubic nucleus.
The cubic sidewalk grows preferentially along the direction that best matches the long tetragonal lattice parameter, giving the paraelectric growth a crystallographic direction that minimizes misfit energy.

Reading between the lines

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

If surface nucleation is generic, then ferroelectric films and nanoparticles should consistently lose polarization from surfaces and interfaces first; this could be tested by comparing faceted particles with different exposed facets in the same in-situ TEM experiment.
Reducing surface defect density or changing surface termination should suppress nucleation and raise the apparent Curie temperature; a controlled comparison of as-prepared versus surface-passivated BaTiO3 particles would test this directly.
The single-unit-cell classification from ~22 pm displacements could be validated against a thickness-independent probe such as 4D-STEM nanodiffraction on the same particle; agreement would strengthen the method, while disagreement would point to projection artifacts.
The model implies a size limit: once the crystal is small enough that two unit cells are a significant fraction of the particle, the distinction between nucleation and growth should blur, connecting the observed mechanism to the known size dependence of the ferroelectric transition.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me give you the short version: this paper has a genuinely new observation—paraelectric nuclei appearing at the surface during the temperature-driven transition in BaTiO3—but the current manuscript doesn't support that observation at the level it claims. The unit-cell classification is vulnerable to projection averaging through 50 nm of crystal, and the energy analysis has arithmetic errors that break the quantitative conclusions.

What's good: The idea of directly mapping dipole dynamics during a ferroic transition at atomic scale is a real step beyond static domain mapping or mesoscale PFM. The XRD confirms the expected tetragonal-to-cubic transition, and the large-scale images show a plausible sequence of surface nucleation and inward growth. The authors also explicitly note that at ~50% cubic content their technique can no longer distinguish phases, which is honest.

The soft spots are serious. First, the signal: a 0.8 nm nucleus near the surface contributes a few percent of the projected thickness in HRTEM. The Ti off-centering is 22±5 pm; the expected change from a small cubic region is a fraction of a picometer after thickness averaging. That's below their own noise. The authors provide no multislice simulations or detection-threshold calibration for this geometry. Their own admission that the method fails at 50% cubic because of thickness averaging raises the question why the same averaging doesn't wash out the signal at the 2–14% stage.

Second, the quantitative core is internally inconsistent. Using their stated a*=0.8 nm and γ=1.07 eV per unit-cell area, Eq. (2) gives 8.56 eV, not 2.13. The SI gives 1.67 eV for strain energy, the main text says 4.0 eV, and neither follows from S=½VEε² with their stated parameters. The depolarization term uses P_s = 1.67×10⁻⁷ C/m², orders of magnitude below known BaTiO3 values. These aren't typos; they're load-bearing for the claim that mechanical interactions dominate.

Who should read this? The ferroelectrics community, mostly as a cautionary example of what in-situ TEM can and cannot resolve. If the projection issue is resolved with simulations and the energy numbers are redone, the qualitative surface-nucleation picture could be an important result. As written, the paper deserves a serious referee but needs major revision before publication. My vote: send to review, but with a strong request for multislice modeling and corrected calculations.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports variable-temperature high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) observations of BaTiO3 nanocrystals (~50 nm) across the ferroelectric-to-paraelectric transition. The authors claim that the transition begins with the emergence of paraelectric cubic nuclei of roughly two unit cells (0.8 nm) near the crystal surface, followed by inward 'sidewalk' growth of the cubic phase. They further estimate a nucleation energy barrier of 2.13 eV and argue that mechanical strain dominates the barrier, comparing their findings to models of electric-field-driven domain nucleation. The manuscript presents atomic-scale maps of Ti off-centering displacements and proposes a nucleation-and-growth mechanism for the transition.

Significance. If substantiated, the observation of unit-cell-scale surface nucleation during a temperature-driven ferroic transition would be a significant advance, providing direct experimental evidence for the microscopic mechanism of a ferroelectric-to-paraelectric transition and connecting it to nucleation theory of domain switching. The qualitative images are suggestive and the experimental setup (in-situ heating of an intermediate-size crystal) is well chosen. However, the quantitative core of the paper is not reliable: the reported barrier and energy decompositions contain arithmetical errors and internal contradictions, and the claimed single-unit-cell classification is not supported by an analysis of projection averaging. The potential significance is high, but the manuscript in its present form does not support its central quantitative or qualitative claims.

major comments (4)

[Discussions, Eq. (2); SI 'Nucleation barrier calculation'] The numerical evaluation of Eq. (2) is inconsistent with the stated parameters. With a critical nucleus size a* = 0.8 nm and an interfacial energy gamma = 1.07 eV per unit-cell area, the barrier is 2(a*)²gamma = 8.56 eV (equivalently, 8 unit-cell areas times 1.07 eV), not 2.13 eV as reported. The reported value corresponds to a* = 0.4 nm (one unit cell), which contradicts the observation of a nucleus 'of the size of a couple of unit cells'. This is a load-bearing quantitative error in the central claim of a 2.13 eV nucleation barrier.
[Discussions, 'mechanical and electric strain'; SI 'Nuclei strain energy calculation'] The reported strain energy is internally inconsistent. The main text states 4.0 eV, the SI states 1.67 eV, and direct evaluation of the SI formula S = (1/2)VEepsilon² with V = (0.8 nm)³, E = 40 GPa, and epsilon = (cT - aC)/cT ≈ 1.67e-3 gives S ≈ 1.8e-4 eV—three to four orders of magnitude smaller than either reported value. The SI value 1.67 eV would require epsilon ≈ 0.16, which is far outside the lattice mismatch. Consequently, the conclusion that mechanical strain dominates the nucleation barrier and is much larger than the electric contribution is not supported by the accompanying calculation.
[Results, Fig. 3 caption; Fig. 4; SI 'Ion-displacement mapping'] The central experimental claim—classification of individual unit cells as tetragonal or cubic—rests on a 22±5 pm Ti off-centering displacement measured from HRTEM projections of a ~50-nm-thick crystal. A 0.8 nm cubic nucleus at the surface represents only a few percent of the projected column, so the projected displacement signal would shift by much less than 1 pm, far below the measurement spread. The authors themselves state in the Fig. 3f caption that at about 50% cubic content the two phases can no longer be clearly distinguished because of thickness averaging, yet they claim to detect cubic phase at 2–14% volume fraction. No multislice simulations, exit-wave reconstruction, or detection-limit analysis is provided to show that a 0.8 nm surface nucleus is visible within a 50-nm projection. Without such support, the unit-cell-level nucleation narrative, the critical nucleus size a*, and all derived energies lack a validated experimental basis.
[SI, 'Nuclei depolarization energy calculation'] The depolarization-energy calculation uses a spontaneous polarization Ps = 1.67e-7 C/m², which is about six orders of magnitude smaller than the known value for BaTiO3 (approximately 0.26 C/m²). With the given formula and parameters, the depolarization energy evaluates to about 1e-13 eV, not 0.06 eV as stated in the SI and main text. This invalidates the quantitative claim that the electric contribution is negligible and calls into question the reported decomposition of the nucleation barrier.

minor comments (5)

[Discussions, nucleus size statement] The text says 'a* equals the length of two-unit cells (80 pm)'. Since 0.8 nm = 800 pm, this appears to be a typographical error, but it should be corrected to avoid confusion about the reported critical nucleus size.
[Results, Fig. 4] Figure 4 reports the cubic-phase fraction as a function of temperature without any error bars or statement of the number of unit cells or images analyzed. Given the central role of these fractions in the nucleation-and-growth narrative, the authors should provide a statistical characterization.
[Discussion, growth direction] The sidewalk growth is initially described as progressing along [011], but the authors then argue that [001] is more plausible. This ambiguity should be resolved rather than left open, especially as it relates to the strain-mismatch argument.
[SI, 'Nucleation barrier calculation'] The sentence 'At the nucleation energy barrier, the change in free energy becomes nil' is imprecise; it is the derivative of the free energy with respect to nucleus size that vanishes at the critical nucleus, not the free-energy change itself. Please correct the wording.
[Experimental, temperature ramp] The authors assume a linear temperature change from 373 K to 383 K over 50 s but provide no calibration or justification for this assumption. A brief note on the heating-cell calibration would strengthen the temporal assignment of the observed structural changes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nucleation barrier is computed from an observed critical nucleus size and an independent DFT surface energy, with only contextual self-citations.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The reported nucleation barrier is obtained by substituting the experimentally measured critical nucleus size (a* ≈ two unit cells) and an externally computed surface energy (γ = 1.07 eV per unit-cell area from ref. 42, Eglitis et al.) into the standard classical-nucleation expression ΔG* = 2(a*)²γ. The DFT value of γ does not depend on the present HRTEM observations, and the observed a* is not fitted to any target barrier; the barrier is a derived quantity, not a prediction from the same input. The phase classification (tetragonal vs cubic) is based on the Ti off-centering measured in the same images, but no equation in the paper defines that classification in terms of the nucleation barrier or vice versa. The comparison with Shin et al. (ref. 40) is an external benchmark, not a fitted target, and the elastic-energy estimate uses independent XRD lattice parameters and a published Young's modulus. Self-citations to prior work by the same group (refs. 34 and 35) provide context on mesoscopic transition behavior and surface defect structure, but they do not enter the nucleation-energy calculation or the classification threshold. The projection-averaging and measurement-precision limitations noted in Fig. 3f and the SI are validity concerns, not circular reasoning. No equation reduces the result to a prior fit or to a self-citation chain.

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

The central quantitative results rest on classical nucleation theory, a literature surface energy value with an unverified transfer to an internal interface, the assumption that observed nuclei are critical, and the reliability of picometer-scale HRTEM classification. No free parameters are fitted to the data; the issue is not circularity but the validity and arithmetic of these inputs.

assumptions (5)

standard math Classical nucleation theory for a cubic nucleus: Delta G = -a^3 Delta Gv + 6 a^2 gamma, with critical nucleus a* = 4 gamma / Delta Gv and barrier Delta G* = 2 (a*)^2 gamma.
Used in Eq. 1-2 to convert the observed nucleus size into a barrier; this is textbook thermodynamics, not the paper's contribution.
domain assumption The DFT surface energy of the TiO2-terminated BaTiO3 (100) surface (gamma = 1.07 eV per unit-cell area) equals the interfacial energy between a cubic nucleus and the tetragonal host.
Reference 42 computes a free surface, not a coherent tetragonal/cubic interface; the equivalence is assumed, not derived.
domain assumption The observed nuclei of about 1 nm are the critical (minimum) nuclei.
The SI states 'we assume that the observed nuclei are approximately the minimal size'; if the nuclei are supercritical, the barrier estimate changes.
domain assumption HRTEM projection images can identify individual unit cells as tetragonal or cubic from a roughly 22 pm Ti off-centering.
The entire observation rests on this classification; the images are projections through a 50-nm crystal and the displacement is near the measurement precision.
domain assumption The temperature ramp from 373 K to 383 K is linear over 50 seconds and electron-beam effects do not nucleate the cubic phase.
Stated in the Experimental section; there is no control for beam-induced transformation, and the temperature at each image is assumed rather than measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surface nucleation of the paraelectric phase in ferroelectric BaTiO3: Atomic scale mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UFQHTJ6A

@misc{pith2026190807276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surface nucleation of the paraelectric phase in ferroelectric BaTiO3: Atomic scale mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UFQHTJ6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07276}
}

read the original abstract

In ferroelectricity, atomic-scale dipole moments interact collectively to produce strong electro-mechanical coupling and switchable macroscopic polarization. Hence, the functionality of ferroelectrics emerges at a solid-solid phase transformation that is accompanied by a sudden disappearance of an inversion symmetry. Much effort has been put to understand the ferroelectric transition at the polarization length scale. Nevertheless, the dipole-moment origin of ferroelectricity has remained elusive. Here, we used variable-temperature high-resolution transmission electron microscopy to reveal the dipole-moment dynamics during the ferroelectric-to-paraelectric transition. We show that the transition occurs when paraelectric nuclei of the size of a couple of unit cells emerge near the surface. Upon heating, the cubic phase sidewalk grows towards the bulk. We quantified the nucleation barrier and show dominancy of mechanical interactions, helping us demonstrate similarities to predictions of domain nucleation during electric field switching. Our work motivates dynamic atomic-scale characterizations of solid-solid transitions in other materials.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

(1) Cowley, R. A. Structural Phase Transitions I. Landau Theory. Adv. Phys. 1980, 29 (1), 1–110. (2) Mayer, J. E.; Streeter, S. F. Phase Transitions. J. Chem. Phys. 1939, 7 (11), 1019–1022. (3) Peng, Y.; Wang, F.; Wang, Z.; Alsayed, A. M.; Zhang, Z.; Yodh, A. G.; Han, Y. Two -Step Nucleation Mechanism in Solid-Solid Phase Transitions. Nat. Mater. 2015, 14...

work page 1980
[2000]

High-Frequency Programmable Acoustic Wave Device Realized through Ferroelectric Domain Engineering

(14) Ivry, Y.; Wang, N.; Durkan, C. High-Frequency Programmable Acoustic Wave Device Realized through Ferroelectric Domain Engineering. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 104 (13), 133505 1-4. (15) Setter, N.; Damjanovic, D.; Eng, L.; Fox, G.; Gevorgian, S.; Hong, S.; Kingon, A.; Kohlstedt, H.; Park, N. Y.; Stephenson, G. B.; et al. Ferroelectric Thin Films: Review ...

work page 2014
[2007]

Surface nucleation of the paraelectric phase in ferroelectric BaTiO 3: Atomic scale mapping

(45) Wada, S.; Yasuno, H.; Hoshina, T.; Nam, S. M.; Kakemoto, H.; Tsurumi, T. Preparation of Nm - Sized Barium Titanate Fine Particles and Their Powder Dielectric Properties. Japanese J. Appl. Physics, Part 1 Regul. Pap. Short Notes Rev. Pap. 2003, 42 (9B), 6188–6195. (46) Zeng, Q.; Xu, S. Thermodynamics and Characteristics of Heterogeneous Nucleation on ...

work page 2003
[2013]

H.; Grinberg, I.; Chen, I

(40) Shin, Y. H.; Grinberg, I.; Chen, I. W.; Rappe, A. M. Nucleation and Growth Mechanism of Ferroelectric Domain-Wall Motion. Nature 2007, 449 (7164), 881–884. (41) Landauer, R. Electrostat ic Considerations in BaTiO3 Domain Formation during Polarization Reversal. J. Appl. Phys. 1957, 28 (2), 227–234. (42) Eglitis, R. I.; Borstel, G.; Heifets, E.; Piskun...

work page 2007
[2019]

M.; Ivry, Y

(35) Barzilay, M.; Qiu, T.; Rappe, A. M.; Ivry, Y. Epitaxial TiOx Surface in Ferroelectric BaTiO3: Native Structure and Dynamic Patterning at the Atomic Scale. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 1902549. (36) Hoshina, T.; Wada, S.; Kuroiwa, Y.; Tsurumi, T. Composite Structure and Size Effect of Barium Titanate Nanoparticles. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2008, 93 (19), 192914 ...

work page 2019
[3172]

M.; Kehr, S

(22) Döring, J.; Eng, L. M.; Kehr, S. C. Low-Temperature Piezoresponse Force Microscopy on Barium Titanate. J. Appl. Phys. 2016, 120 (8), 084103 1-6. (23) Jia, C. L.; Mi, S. B.; Urban, K.; Vrejoiu, I.; Alexe, M.; Hesse, D. Atomic-Scale Study of Electric Dipoles near Charged and Uncharged Domain Walls in Ferroelectric Films. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7 (1), 57–61....

work page 2016
[4115]

L.; Tang, Y

(25) Liu, Y.; Zhu, Y. L.; Tang, Y. L.; Wang, Y. J.; Li, S.; Zhang, S. R.; Han, M. J.; Ma, J. Y.; Suriyaprakash, J.; Ma, X. L. Controlled Growth and Atomic -Scale Mapping of Charged Heterointerfaces in PbTiO3/BiFeO3 Bilayers. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9 (30), 25578– 25586. (26) Polking, M. J.; Han, M. G.; Yourdkhani, A.; Petkov, V.; Kisielowski, C....

work page 2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

(1) Cowley, R. A. Structural Phase Transitions I. Landau Theory. Adv. Phys. 1980, 29 (1), 1–110. (2) Mayer, J. E.; Streeter, S. F. Phase Transitions. J. Chem. Phys. 1939, 7 (11), 1019–1022. (3) Peng, Y.; Wang, F.; Wang, Z.; Alsayed, A. M.; Zhang, Z.; Yodh, A. G.; Han, Y. Two -Step Nucleation Mechanism in Solid-Solid Phase Transitions. Nat. Mater. 2015, 14...

work page 1980

[2] [2000]

High-Frequency Programmable Acoustic Wave Device Realized through Ferroelectric Domain Engineering

(14) Ivry, Y.; Wang, N.; Durkan, C. High-Frequency Programmable Acoustic Wave Device Realized through Ferroelectric Domain Engineering. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 104 (13), 133505 1-4. (15) Setter, N.; Damjanovic, D.; Eng, L.; Fox, G.; Gevorgian, S.; Hong, S.; Kingon, A.; Kohlstedt, H.; Park, N. Y.; Stephenson, G. B.; et al. Ferroelectric Thin Films: Review ...

work page 2014

[3] [2007]

Surface nucleation of the paraelectric phase in ferroelectric BaTiO 3: Atomic scale mapping

(45) Wada, S.; Yasuno, H.; Hoshina, T.; Nam, S. M.; Kakemoto, H.; Tsurumi, T. Preparation of Nm - Sized Barium Titanate Fine Particles and Their Powder Dielectric Properties. Japanese J. Appl. Physics, Part 1 Regul. Pap. Short Notes Rev. Pap. 2003, 42 (9B), 6188–6195. (46) Zeng, Q.; Xu, S. Thermodynamics and Characteristics of Heterogeneous Nucleation on ...

work page 2003

[4] [2013]

H.; Grinberg, I.; Chen, I

(40) Shin, Y. H.; Grinberg, I.; Chen, I. W.; Rappe, A. M. Nucleation and Growth Mechanism of Ferroelectric Domain-Wall Motion. Nature 2007, 449 (7164), 881–884. (41) Landauer, R. Electrostat ic Considerations in BaTiO3 Domain Formation during Polarization Reversal. J. Appl. Phys. 1957, 28 (2), 227–234. (42) Eglitis, R. I.; Borstel, G.; Heifets, E.; Piskun...

work page 2007

[5] [2019]

M.; Ivry, Y

(35) Barzilay, M.; Qiu, T.; Rappe, A. M.; Ivry, Y. Epitaxial TiOx Surface in Ferroelectric BaTiO3: Native Structure and Dynamic Patterning at the Atomic Scale. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 1902549. (36) Hoshina, T.; Wada, S.; Kuroiwa, Y.; Tsurumi, T. Composite Structure and Size Effect of Barium Titanate Nanoparticles. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2008, 93 (19), 192914 ...

work page 2019

[6] [3172]

M.; Kehr, S

(22) Döring, J.; Eng, L. M.; Kehr, S. C. Low-Temperature Piezoresponse Force Microscopy on Barium Titanate. J. Appl. Phys. 2016, 120 (8), 084103 1-6. (23) Jia, C. L.; Mi, S. B.; Urban, K.; Vrejoiu, I.; Alexe, M.; Hesse, D. Atomic-Scale Study of Electric Dipoles near Charged and Uncharged Domain Walls in Ferroelectric Films. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7 (1), 57–61....

work page 2016

[7] [4115]

L.; Tang, Y

(25) Liu, Y.; Zhu, Y. L.; Tang, Y. L.; Wang, Y. J.; Li, S.; Zhang, S. R.; Han, M. J.; Ma, J. Y.; Suriyaprakash, J.; Ma, X. L. Controlled Growth and Atomic -Scale Mapping of Charged Heterointerfaces in PbTiO3/BiFeO3 Bilayers. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9 (30), 25578– 25586. (26) Polking, M. J.; Han, M. G.; Yourdkhani, A.; Petkov, V.; Kisielowski, C....

work page 2017