Does the metallic 1T phase WS2 really exist?

Chung-Wei Tseng; Hideaki Nakajima; Kazu Suenaga; Po-Wen Chiu; Shisheng Li; Toshiya Okazaki; Yung-Chang Lin; Zheng Liu

arxiv: 1907.11398 · v1 · pith:KIWMIZDLnew · submitted 2019-07-26 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Does the metallic 1T phase WS2 really exist?

Yung-Chang Lin , Hideaki Nakajima , Chung-Wei Tseng , Shisheng Li , Zheng Liu , Toshiya Okazaki , Po-Wen Chiu , Kazu Suenaga This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 15:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords WS21T phasetransition metal dichalcogenidedirect band gapphotoluminescenceRaman spectroscopyscanning transmission electron microscopyphase stability

0 comments

The pith

The 1T phase of monolayer WS2 is a direct band gap semiconductor, optically identical to the 1H phase.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the optical properties of monolayer WS2 across its 1H, 1T, and 1T' phases through Raman spectroscopy, photoluminescence measurements, and atomic-resolution imaging. Theory has long predicted that the 1T phase should be metallic, yet the measurements reveal clear exciton transitions and a direct band gap in 1T WS2 that match those of the known semiconducting 1H phase. The 1T' phase, by contrast, shows the expected gapless behavior with quenched photoluminescence. The authors conclude that the 1T phase has a strong tendency to coexist with metallic 1T' domains, which may explain prior reports attributing metallicity to 1T itself.

Core claim

Despite all prior theoretical predictions that the 1T phase is metallic, experimental correlation of atomic structure with Raman and photoluminescence spectra demonstrates that monolayer 1T-phase WS2 is a direct band gap semiconductor whose optical response is indistinguishable from the 1H phase; the 1T' phase alone exhibits the gapless, non-luminescent behavior expected for a metal.

What carries the argument

Combined Raman/photoluminescence spectroscopy and scanning transmission electron microscopy used to assign phase identity and measure optical response on the same monolayer regions.

If this is right

Device applications that rely on semiconducting TMDC monolayers can treat the 1T phase as functionally equivalent to the 1H phase for optical and electronic purposes.
Claims of metallic 1T WS2 in the literature are likely measurements on mixed 1T/1T' samples rather than pure 1T.
Phase-engineering strategies must separately stabilize and identify the 1T' component to achieve true metallic behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the 1T phase is reliably semiconducting, phase-transition routes to metallic contacts in WS2 devices may need to target the 1T' structure instead.
Similar re-examination of other TMDCs reported as metallic 1T phases could reveal additional cases of optical indistinguishability from their 1H counterparts.
The stability window for pure 1T without 1T' admixture may be narrower than current growth protocols assume.

Load-bearing premise

The atomic structures seen in scanning transmission electron microscopy represent pure 1T phase without any undetected 1T' domains that could change the measured optical signals.

What would settle it

A sample whose atomic lattice is confirmed by high-resolution imaging to be uniformly 1T (no 1T' regions visible) yet shows metallic conductivity or complete absence of photoluminescence.

read the original abstract

The electronic and optical properties of transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDCs) in distinctive phases, such as 1H, 1T, and 1T' phases, are of fundamental importance for variety of applications. The 1H phase has been understood as a direct bandgap semiconductor. On the other hand, the electronic properties of the 1T and 1T' phases remain controversy in the theoretical and experimental perspectives. In this study, we explore the optical properties of monolayer WS2 in 1H, 1T, and 1T' phases using Raman and photoluminescence, corroborated with the atomic structure identified by scanning transmission electron microscopy. Despite of earlier theoretical investigations which all predict the metallic 1T phase, we experimentally discovered that the 1T-phase WS2 is a direct band gap semiconductor and optically indistinguishable from the 1H phase. In a sharp contrast, the 1T'-phase WS2 shows a gapless nature in its bandstructure with the quenched exciton transition as expected. Our experimental findings may give an interesting twist on the existing literatures reporting the metallic nature of 1T phase because the 1T phase has a strong tendency to co-exist with the metallic 1T' phase.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims 1T WS2 shows semiconductor optical behavior like 1H based on STEM plus Raman/PL, but the phase purity of the 1T assignment is the main open question.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors report monolayer 1T WS2 as a direct-gap semiconductor with PL and Raman features matching the 1H phase, while 1T' is gapless with quenched excitons. This runs against every cited theory that calls 1T metallic, and they attribute prior metallic assignments to undetected 1T' mixing. They support the claim with STEM for atomic structure identification followed by optical measurements on the same regions. That structure-property correlation is the part that stands out as useful; many phase studies skip the direct imaging step. The note on 1T-1T' coexistence is also a fair interpretive point given how these lattices can intermix. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test. STEM in projection can miss the subtle octahedral distortions that distinguish 1T' from 1T, so any undetected 1T' patches would mean the optical signal might not come from true 1T at all. Since the result contradicts uniform theory, the experiment carries the burden of showing the imaged areas are phase-pure, and the abstract gives no detail on how mixtures were ruled out or on the reproducibility of the spectra. Without those controls visible, the semiconductor assignment for 1T remains provisional. This is for people in the TMDC device community who need reliable phase assignments for contacts or channels. A reader who works with experimental phase identification would find the data worth looking at even if the conclusion needs checking. The work shows honest engagement with the existing literature and a clear experimental approach, so it deserves a serious referee to examine the actual STEM images, spectra, and sample details. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that monolayer WS2 in the 1T phase is a direct-bandgap semiconductor whose Raman and photoluminescence signatures are optically indistinguishable from those of the 1H phase, in direct contradiction to all prior theoretical predictions of metallic behavior; the 1T' phase is shown to be gapless with quenched exciton emission. These conclusions rest on correlated STEM imaging for phase assignment together with optical spectra.

Significance. If the reported phase purity holds, the result would overturn the consensus that the undistorted 1T octahedral phase is metallic and would require revision of band-structure calculations for TMDC polytypes, with direct consequences for proposed 1T-based devices. The experimental combination of atomic-resolution imaging with optical characterization supplies a concrete test of phase-dependent properties that has been missing from the literature.

major comments (1)

[STEM phase-assignment section] STEM phase-assignment section: the claim that the imaged lattices are phase-pure 1T (and therefore that the observed direct-gap PL originates from 1T) is not supported by a quantitative analysis of possible 1T' domain fractions; because the octahedral distortion of 1T' is subtle in projection, undetected 1T' patches could contribute to or dominate the optical response, leaving the metallic character of true 1T untested.

minor comments (2)

The manuscript should state the acceleration voltage, convergence angle, and collection angles used for the STEM images so that the visibility of 1T versus 1T' distortions can be assessed independently.
Figure captions for the optical spectra should include the exact laser wavelength, power density, and integration time to allow direct comparison with prior 1H and 1T' data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The concern regarding quantitative validation of phase purity in the STEM section is noted, and we provide a point-by-point response below. We will incorporate additional analysis to strengthen the manuscript while maintaining that our correlated STEM-optical data support the reported conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [STEM phase-assignment section] STEM phase-assignment section: the claim that the imaged lattices are phase-pure 1T (and therefore that the observed direct-gap PL originates from 1T) is not supported by a quantitative analysis of possible 1T' domain fractions; because the octahedral distortion of 1T' is subtle in projection, undetected 1T' patches could contribute to or dominate the optical response, leaving the metallic character of true 1T untested.

Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of possible 1T' domain fractions would strengthen the phase-assignment claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a statistical analysis of multiple STEM images from the same regions used for optical measurements. This will include (i) Fourier-transform analysis to confirm the absence of 1T' superlattice spots, (ii) line-profile intensity analysis across atomic columns to bound the minimum detectable distortion amplitude, and (iii) an estimate of the maximum undetected 1T' area fraction consistent with the observed image contrast and signal-to-noise ratio. The direct-gap PL remains uniform across these regions and is quenched only where 1T' is explicitly identified, which is difficult to reconcile with dominant metallic 1T' contributions. We therefore maintain that the data support semiconducting 1T, but acknowledge the referee's point and will make the quantitative bounds explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental claims with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper reports experimental observations from STEM imaging of atomic structure combined with Raman and photoluminescence measurements of optical response. No equations, fitted parameters, or theoretical derivations are present that could reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. The central finding—that 1T WS2 appears optically identical to 1H—is presented as an empirical result, not derived from prior self-citations or ansatzes. Self-citations, if any, are not load-bearing for the experimental attribution. This matches the default case of a self-contained experimental study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental paper; relies on standard assumptions that STEM can unambiguously assign 1T vs 1T' phases and that optical spectra reflect intrinsic band structure without substrate or defect effects.

axioms (1)

domain assumption STEM imaging distinguishes pure 1T from 1T' domains without ambiguity from mixed phases
Central to assigning the observed optical response to the 1T phase

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5783 in / 1189 out tokens · 22821 ms · 2026-05-24T15:46:31.544238+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Radisavljevic, A

B. Radisavljevic, A. Radenovic, J. Brivio, V. Giacometti, and A. Kis, Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 147 (2011)

work page 2011
[2]

Braga, I

D. Braga, I. Gutiérrez Lezama, H. Berger, and A. Morpurgo, Nano Lett. 12, 5218 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

Amani, D.-H

M. Amani, D.-H. Lien, D. Kiriya, J. Xiao, A. Azcatl, J. Noh, S. R. Madhvapathy, R. Addou, S. KC, M. Dubey, K. Cho, R. M. Wallace, S.-C. Lee, J.-H. He, J. W. Ager III, X. Zhang, E. Yablonovitch, and A. Javey, Science 350, 1065 (2015)

work page 2015
[4]

Chhowalla, H

M. Chhowalla, H. S. Shin, G. Eda, L.-J. Li, K. P. Loh, and H. Zhang, Nat. Chem. 5, 263 (2013)

work page 2013
[5]

T. F. Jaramillo, K. P. Jørgensen, J. Bonde, J. H. Nielsen, S. Horch, and I. Chorkendorff, Science 317, 100 (2007)

work page 2007
[6]

K.-A. N. Duerloo, Y. Li, and E. J. Reed, Nat. Commun. 5, 4214 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

R. Pan, X. L. Fan, H. Zhang, and Y. Yang, Comput. Mater. Sci. 122, 118 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

G. Eda, T. Fujita, H. Yamaguchi, D. Voiry, M. Chen, and M. Chhowalla, ACS Nano 6, 7311 (2012)

work page 2012
[9]

M. Kan, J. Y. Wang, X. W. Li, S. H. Zhang, Y. W. Li, Y. Kawazoe, Q. Sun, and P. Jena, J. Phys. Chem. C 118, 1515 (2014)

work page 2014
[10]

K. K. Amara, Y. Chen, Y. C. Lin, R. Kumar, E. Okunishi, K. Suenaga, S. Y. Quek, and G. Eda, Chem. Mater. 28, 2308 (2016)

work page 2016
[11]

D. Yang, S. J. Sandoval, W. M. R. Divigalpitiya, J. C. Irwin, and R. F. Frindt, Phys. Rev. B 43, 12053 (1991)

work page 1991
[12]

Jiménez Sandoval, D

S. Jiménez Sandoval, D. Yang, R. F. Frindt, and J. C. Irwin, Phys. Rev. B 44, 3955 (1991)

work page 1991
[13]

Kappera, D

R. Kappera, D. Voiry, S. E. Yalcin, B. Branch, G. Gupta, A. D. Mohite, and M. Chhowalla, Nat. Mater. 13, 1128 (2014)

work page 2014
[14]

G. Eda, H. Yamaguchi, D. Voiry, T. Fujita, M. Chen, and M. Chhowalla, Nano Lett. 11, 5111 (2011)

work page 2011
[15]

Wypych and R

F. Wypych and R. Schollhorn, J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun. 1884343, 1386 (1992)

work page 1992
[16]

Acerce, D

M. Acerce, D. Voiry, and M. Chhowalla, Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 313 (2015)

work page 2015
[17]

Voiry, H

D. Voiry, H. Yamaguchi, J. Li, R. Silva, D. C. B. Alves, T. Fujita, M. Chen, T. Asefa, V. B. Shenoy, G. Eda, and M. Chhowalla, Nat. Mater. 12, 850 (2013)

work page 2013
[18]

Mahler, V

B. Mahler, V. Hoepfner, K. Liao, and G. A. Ozin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 14121 (2014)

work page 2014
[19]

Cheng, K

P. Cheng, K. Sun, and Y. H. Hu, Nano Lett. 16, 572 (2016)

work page 2016
[20]

M. Piao, J. Chu, X. Wang, Y. Chi, H. Zhang, C. Li, H. Shi, and M. K. Joo, Nanotechnology 29, 0 (2018)

work page 2018
[21]

C. N. R. Rao, U. Maitra, and U. V. Waghmare, Chem. Phys. Lett. 609, 172 (2014)

work page 2014
[22]

D. Wang, X. Zhang, S. Bao, Z. Zhang, H. Fei, and Z. Wu, J. Mater. Chem. A 5, 2681 (2017)

work page 2017
[23]

Calandra, Phys

M. Calandra, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 88, 245428 (2013)

work page 2013
[24]

T. Hu, R. Li, and J. Dong, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 174702 (2013)

work page 2013
[25]

L. Liu, J. Wu, L. Wu, M. Ye, X. Liu, Q. Wang, S. Hou, P. Lu, L. Sun, J. Zheng, L. Xing, L. Gu, X. Jiang, L. Xie, and L. Jiao, Nat. Mater. 17, 1108 (2018)

work page 2018
[26]

Y. Yu, G. H. Nam, Q. He, X. J. Wu, K. Zhang, Z. Yang, J. Chen, Q. Ma, M. Zhao, Z. Liu, F. R. Ran, X. Wang, H. Li, X. Huang, B. Li, Q. Xiong, Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, L. Gu, Y. Du, W. Huang, and H. Zhang, Nat. Chem. 10, 638 (2018)

work page 2018
[27]

X. Qian, J. Liu, L. Fu, and J. Li, Science (80-. ). 346, 1344 (2014)

work page 2014
[28]

B. Pal, A. Singh, G. Sharada, P. Mahale, A. Kumar, S. Thirupathaiah, H. Sezen, M. Amati, L. Gregoratti, U. V. Waghmare, and D. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 96, 195426 (2017)

work page 2017
[29]

Y.-C. Lin, D. O. Dumcenco, Y.-S. Huang, and K. Suenaga, Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 391 (2014)

work page 2014
[30]

Y. C. Lin, C. H. Yeh, H. C. Lin, M. D. Siao, Z. Liu, H. Nakajima, T. Okazaki, M. Y. Chou, K. Suenaga, and P. W. Chiu, ACS Nano 12, 12080 (2018)

work page 2018
[31]

Sawada, C

H. Sawada, C. S. Allen, S. Wang, J. H. Warner, and A. I. Kirkland, Ultramicroscopy 182, 195 (2017)

work page 2017
[32]

Y.-C. Lin, S. Li, H.-P. Komsa, L.-J. Chang, A. V. Krasheninnikov, G. Eda, and K. Suenaga, Adv. Funct. Mater. 1704210, 1704210 (2017)

work page 2017
[33]

Mukai, E

M. Mukai, E. Okunishi, M. Ashino, K. Omoto, T. Fukuda, A. Ikeda, K. Somehara, T. Kaneyama, T. Saitoh, T. Hirayama, and Y. Ikuhara, Microscopy 64, 151 (2015)

work page 2015
[34]

Huang, Y

H. Huang, Y. Cui, Q. Li, C. Dun, W. Zhou, W. Huang, L. Chen, C. A. Hewitt, and D. L. Carroll, Nano Energy 26, 172 (2016)

work page 2016
[35]

Silvan Kretschmer and Dr

Dr. Silvan Kretschmer and Dr. Arkady V . Krasheninnikov (private communication)

work page

[1] [1]

Radisavljevic, A

B. Radisavljevic, A. Radenovic, J. Brivio, V. Giacometti, and A. Kis, Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 147 (2011)

work page 2011

[2] [2]

Braga, I

D. Braga, I. Gutiérrez Lezama, H. Berger, and A. Morpurgo, Nano Lett. 12, 5218 (2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

Amani, D.-H

M. Amani, D.-H. Lien, D. Kiriya, J. Xiao, A. Azcatl, J. Noh, S. R. Madhvapathy, R. Addou, S. KC, M. Dubey, K. Cho, R. M. Wallace, S.-C. Lee, J.-H. He, J. W. Ager III, X. Zhang, E. Yablonovitch, and A. Javey, Science 350, 1065 (2015)

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Chhowalla, H

M. Chhowalla, H. S. Shin, G. Eda, L.-J. Li, K. P. Loh, and H. Zhang, Nat. Chem. 5, 263 (2013)

work page 2013

[5] [5]

T. F. Jaramillo, K. P. Jørgensen, J. Bonde, J. H. Nielsen, S. Horch, and I. Chorkendorff, Science 317, 100 (2007)

work page 2007

[6] [6]

K.-A. N. Duerloo, Y. Li, and E. J. Reed, Nat. Commun. 5, 4214 (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

R. Pan, X. L. Fan, H. Zhang, and Y. Yang, Comput. Mater. Sci. 122, 118 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

G. Eda, T. Fujita, H. Yamaguchi, D. Voiry, M. Chen, and M. Chhowalla, ACS Nano 6, 7311 (2012)

work page 2012

[9] [9]

M. Kan, J. Y. Wang, X. W. Li, S. H. Zhang, Y. W. Li, Y. Kawazoe, Q. Sun, and P. Jena, J. Phys. Chem. C 118, 1515 (2014)

work page 2014

[10] [10]

K. K. Amara, Y. Chen, Y. C. Lin, R. Kumar, E. Okunishi, K. Suenaga, S. Y. Quek, and G. Eda, Chem. Mater. 28, 2308 (2016)

work page 2016

[11] [11]

D. Yang, S. J. Sandoval, W. M. R. Divigalpitiya, J. C. Irwin, and R. F. Frindt, Phys. Rev. B 43, 12053 (1991)

work page 1991

[12] [12]

Jiménez Sandoval, D

S. Jiménez Sandoval, D. Yang, R. F. Frindt, and J. C. Irwin, Phys. Rev. B 44, 3955 (1991)

work page 1991

[13] [13]

Kappera, D

R. Kappera, D. Voiry, S. E. Yalcin, B. Branch, G. Gupta, A. D. Mohite, and M. Chhowalla, Nat. Mater. 13, 1128 (2014)

work page 2014

[14] [14]

G. Eda, H. Yamaguchi, D. Voiry, T. Fujita, M. Chen, and M. Chhowalla, Nano Lett. 11, 5111 (2011)

work page 2011

[15] [15]

Wypych and R

F. Wypych and R. Schollhorn, J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun. 1884343, 1386 (1992)

work page 1992

[16] [16]

Acerce, D

M. Acerce, D. Voiry, and M. Chhowalla, Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 313 (2015)

work page 2015

[17] [17]

Voiry, H

D. Voiry, H. Yamaguchi, J. Li, R. Silva, D. C. B. Alves, T. Fujita, M. Chen, T. Asefa, V. B. Shenoy, G. Eda, and M. Chhowalla, Nat. Mater. 12, 850 (2013)

work page 2013

[18] [18]

Mahler, V

B. Mahler, V. Hoepfner, K. Liao, and G. A. Ozin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 14121 (2014)

work page 2014

[19] [19]

Cheng, K

P. Cheng, K. Sun, and Y. H. Hu, Nano Lett. 16, 572 (2016)

work page 2016

[20] [20]

M. Piao, J. Chu, X. Wang, Y. Chi, H. Zhang, C. Li, H. Shi, and M. K. Joo, Nanotechnology 29, 0 (2018)

work page 2018

[21] [21]

C. N. R. Rao, U. Maitra, and U. V. Waghmare, Chem. Phys. Lett. 609, 172 (2014)

work page 2014

[22] [22]

D. Wang, X. Zhang, S. Bao, Z. Zhang, H. Fei, and Z. Wu, J. Mater. Chem. A 5, 2681 (2017)

work page 2017

[23] [23]

Calandra, Phys

M. Calandra, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 88, 245428 (2013)

work page 2013

[24] [24]

T. Hu, R. Li, and J. Dong, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 174702 (2013)

work page 2013

[25] [25]

L. Liu, J. Wu, L. Wu, M. Ye, X. Liu, Q. Wang, S. Hou, P. Lu, L. Sun, J. Zheng, L. Xing, L. Gu, X. Jiang, L. Xie, and L. Jiao, Nat. Mater. 17, 1108 (2018)

work page 2018

[26] [26]

Y. Yu, G. H. Nam, Q. He, X. J. Wu, K. Zhang, Z. Yang, J. Chen, Q. Ma, M. Zhao, Z. Liu, F. R. Ran, X. Wang, H. Li, X. Huang, B. Li, Q. Xiong, Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, L. Gu, Y. Du, W. Huang, and H. Zhang, Nat. Chem. 10, 638 (2018)

work page 2018

[27] [27]

X. Qian, J. Liu, L. Fu, and J. Li, Science (80-. ). 346, 1344 (2014)

work page 2014

[28] [28]

B. Pal, A. Singh, G. Sharada, P. Mahale, A. Kumar, S. Thirupathaiah, H. Sezen, M. Amati, L. Gregoratti, U. V. Waghmare, and D. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 96, 195426 (2017)

work page 2017

[29] [29]

Y.-C. Lin, D. O. Dumcenco, Y.-S. Huang, and K. Suenaga, Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 391 (2014)

work page 2014

[30] [30]

Y. C. Lin, C. H. Yeh, H. C. Lin, M. D. Siao, Z. Liu, H. Nakajima, T. Okazaki, M. Y. Chou, K. Suenaga, and P. W. Chiu, ACS Nano 12, 12080 (2018)

work page 2018

[31] [31]

Sawada, C

H. Sawada, C. S. Allen, S. Wang, J. H. Warner, and A. I. Kirkland, Ultramicroscopy 182, 195 (2017)

work page 2017

[32] [32]

Y.-C. Lin, S. Li, H.-P. Komsa, L.-J. Chang, A. V. Krasheninnikov, G. Eda, and K. Suenaga, Adv. Funct. Mater. 1704210, 1704210 (2017)

work page 2017

[33] [33]

Mukai, E

M. Mukai, E. Okunishi, M. Ashino, K. Omoto, T. Fukuda, A. Ikeda, K. Somehara, T. Kaneyama, T. Saitoh, T. Hirayama, and Y. Ikuhara, Microscopy 64, 151 (2015)

work page 2015

[34] [34]

Huang, Y

H. Huang, Y. Cui, Q. Li, C. Dun, W. Zhou, W. Huang, L. Chen, C. A. Hewitt, and D. L. Carroll, Nano Energy 26, 172 (2016)

work page 2016

[35] [35]

Silvan Kretschmer and Dr

Dr. Silvan Kretschmer and Dr. Arkady V . Krasheninnikov (private communication)

work page