Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Structural design and multiple magnetic orderings of the intergrowth compound Eu$_2$CuMn$_2$P$_3$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Eu2CuMn2P3 is designed as an intergrowth of EuCuP and EuMn2P2 block layers, and the paper claims this hybridization produces four distinct magnetic orders whose origins are tied to the parent blocks.

desk verdict A well-executed new-compound paper whose headline Mn ordering at 80 K is plausible but not yet established; the authors are honest about it, and a neutron experiment would settle it. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17415 v1 pith:XFU5L7C5 submitted 2025-04-24 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

Xiyu Chen , Ziwen Wang , Wuzhang Yang , Jia-Yi Lu , Zhiyu Zhou , Zhi Ren , Guang-Han Cao , Shuai Dong
show 1 more author
Zhi-Cheng Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords intergrowthcompoundblock-layerdesignEu2CuMn2P3EuCuPMn2P2antiferromagnetismspinreorientationnegativemagnetoresistance
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

The paper claims that a deliberately designed intergrowth of two known layered phosphides, hexagonal EuCuP and trigonal EuMn2P2, forms a stable compound, Eu2CuMn2P3, in which the magnetic behavior of each parent block is preserved but new inter-block couplings appear. The result is a material with four magnetic features: weak antiferromagnetic Mn order at 80 K, antiferromagnetic Eu order at 29 K, a 14.5 K spin-reorientation transition, and weak ferromagnetism below 80 K. A sympathetic reader should care because this is a test of a rational construction rule: pick two layered compounds with matching in-plane lattices and a shared Eu plane, stack their block layers, and obtain magnetic and transport properties that neither parent shows alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the block layer: EuCuP and EuMn2P2 are chosen because their in-plane lattice constants match to about 0.2% and they share an Eu plane, so their stack forms an intergrowth with minimal lattice deformation. The load-bearing calculation is a map of magnetic energies for fifteen collinear spin arrangements built from five inter-plane exchange constants, which identifies the lowest-energy state and the energetically close competitors assigned to different temperature intervals. That energy map, together with measured transition temperatures, is what ties the 29 K transition to the EuCuP block, the 14.5 K reorientation to the EuMn2P2 block, and the 80 K order to Mn.

What would settle it

Neutron diffraction or resonant elastic x-ray scattering below 80 K would settle the central claim: if no Mn magnetic signal develops at 80 K, or if the Eu moment direction does not reorient as the temperature passes through 14.5 K while remaining in the $ab$ plane, then the proposed EuFA-MnAA to EuAA-MnAA-A spin-evolution scenario is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Eu2CuMn2P3 is an intergrowth compound built by stacking half the EuCuP unit cell and the full EuMn2P2 unit cell through a shared Eu plane. The paper asserts that this structural hybridization retains the parent-block magnetic couplings while adding new inter-block interactions, and that these couplings explain the observed hierarchy of order: Mn orders at $T_{\mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Mn}}=80$ K even though Mn order is suppressed in EuMn2P2, Eu orders antiferromagnetically at $T_{\mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Eu}}=29$ K with an easy plane in the $ab$ plane, and a spin reorientation occurs at $T_{\mathrm{SR}}=14.5$ K. Magnetic-energy calculations over fifteen collinear spin structures place the ground state in the EuAA-MnAA-A configuration, with the EuFA-MnAA configuration accounting for the intermediate temperature range, and the computed semimetallic band structure matches the measured metallic transport. The weakly ferromagnetic signal below 80 K is attributed to the Mn sublattice, either by slight spin canting or by spin polarization of itinerant carriers, and the paper uses the isostructural nonmagnetic-Mn compound Eu2CuZn2P3 to support that assignment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the magnetic exchange interactions inside each block layer survive essentially unchanged when EuCuP and EuMn2P2 are stacked, so the 29 K order can be credited to the EuCuP block, the 14.5 K reorientation to the EuMn2P2 block, and the calculated spin structures mapped onto measured temperatures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the intergrowth construction is correct, deliberately stacking block layers from two layered magnetic compounds can produce a magnetic phase diagram richer than either parent compound alone.
  • The appearance of Mn order at 80 K in the intergrowth, where the parent EuMn2P2 shows at most weak Mn correlations, means that changing the distance between Mn2P2 layers can switch on magnetic order in a frustrated parent.
  • The EuCuP block supplies the metallic carriers, so the intergrowth remains a low-carrier semimetal even though the EuMn2P2 block is insulating on its own.
  • The 29 K transition is a bulk antiferromagnetic Eu order with an easy $ab$ plane, confirmed by the heat-capacity peak and by the metamagnetic transition observed for in-plane fields.
  • The proposed spin evolution, from EuFA-MnAA above 14.5 K to EuAA-MnAA-A below it, predicts specific collinear arrangements that can be tested directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the block-layer criterion generalizes, replacing Mn with other 3d metals in the same EuCuP and EuMn2P2 couple should yield a family of intergrowths whose magnetic order temperatures can be tuned systematically; a small series of such compounds would test the design rule without requiring neutron data.
  • The 65% negative magnetoresistance near the Eu ordering temperature suggests the block-layer route could be used to engineer magnetoresistive semimetals, with conduction controlled by which block orders.
  • The proposed 14.5 K spin reorientation should leave a measurable signature in angle-dependent magnetization or magnetoresistance; tracking the metamagnetic field as a function of temperature would constrain the exchange-anisotropy competition the paper invokes.
  • The paper leaves open whether the 80 K Mn order is long-range or short-range; comparing single-crystal and polycrystalline magnetic response at that temperature is a simple way to narrow that question before deeper probes are attempted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the synthesis, crystal structure, magnetic, transport, and electronic-structure characterization of a new layered intergrowth compound Eu2CuMn2P3, obtained by alternating block layers from EuCuP and EuMn2P2. The structural refinement is of good quality (R1 = 0.0333, goodness-of-fit 1.230) and EDX confirms the stoichiometry. The authors identify multiple magnetic transitions: a weak AFM-type ordering of Mn at 80 K, an AFM ordering of Eu at 29 K (confirmed as bulk by a heat-capacity peak at 28.5 K), a spin-reorientation kink at 14.5 K, and a weak ferromagnetic component below 80 K. DFT magnetic-energy calculations for collinear spin arrangements suggest an EuAA-MnAA-A ground state with a proposed temperature-dependent spin evolution, and band-structure calculations with UMn = 2 eV yield a semimetallic state consistent with the observed metallic transport and low carrier density. The paper frames these results as evidence for the block-layer design strategy.

Significance. If the Mn-ordering claim at 80 K is confirmed, the paper demonstrates a rational intergrowth strategy that can induce a magnetic order in a block-layer compound which is absent in the parent EuMn2P2. The structural and compositional characterization is solid, the 29 K Eu transition is clearly bulk, and the DFT study is careful in testing multiple UMn values and collinear configurations. The comparison with isostructural Eu2CuZn2P3 in the note added provides valuable support for the block-layer approach. The main limitations are that the central claim of Mn ordering rests on indirect evidence and the electronic-structure agreement is partly a fitted outcome; both issues are addressable by reframing in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B and III.C (Figs. 2(c), 2(d), 3)] The 80 K Mn 'ordering' is not established by the present data. The ac susceptibility shows only a subtle in-phase peak with no out-of-phase response and no frequency dependence, and the heat capacity exhibits no lambda-anomaly, only a 'subtle slope inflection at ~75 K' (Fig. 3 inset). The assignment to Mn is made by exclusion, and the authors themselves concede that 'whether it is long-range or short-range remains undetermined.' Given that weak Mn correlations near 50 K are reported for the parent EuMn2P2 (ref. 42), the 80 K feature could be a modified short-range-correlation regime rather than a new long-range Mn ordering. Because this is the key novelty of the paper, the abstract's definitive statement 'weak antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering of Mn at T_N^Mn = 80 K' and the Conclusions' claim that the transitions at T_N^Mn and T_N^Eu are 'corroborated by heat capacity measurements' overstate the evidence. Please either supply a direct magnetic probe (neutron or muon) or revise the language throughout to present the Mn ordering as a tentative inference.
  2. [II.D and III.F (band structure, Fig. 6)] The choice UMn = 2 eV is explicitly optimized to reproduce the experimental lattice constants and the observed metallic transport ('our tests show that moderate values provide a more accurate description...'). Consequently, the 'semimetallic band structure that aligns well with experimental observations' is a fitted consistency check, not an independent prediction. The text should label it as such; otherwise the agreement between theory and experiment is presented as confirmatory when it is partly circular. The magnetic-energy results are less affected because their qualitative conclusions are stable over UMn = 0-5 eV (Fig. S7), but the electronic-structure claims need this framing correction.
  3. [III.D, Fig. 4, Table III] The proposed temperature-dependent spin structures (EuFA-MnAA between 29 K and 14.5 K, then EuAA-MnAA-A below 14.5 K) rest on the assumption that exchange interactions within the block layers are essentially unchanged from the parent compounds, and on small magnetic-energy differences (e.g., 2.1 meV/u.c. between EuAA-MnAA-A and EuFA-MnAA in Table III). The manuscript acknowledges that neutron diffraction is needed, but the abstract and conclusions present the assignments with more certainty than the evidence supports. Please mark the spin-evolution scenario as a working hypothesis, and make the block-layer attribution of T_N^Eu and T_SR explicitly an inference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout, esp. Table I and SM captions] The compound is sometimes written with the element order Eu2Mn2CuP3 (e.g., the CCDC deposition identifier in Table I footnote and several SM figure captions such as Figs. S2 and S5); please standardize to Eu2CuMn2P3.
  2. [Supplemental Materials, Sec. F] The band-structure discussion says 'a large UMn of 5 eV introduces a small band gap, as shown in Fig. S6(b)', but Fig. S6 is the resistivity data; the reference should be to Fig. S8(c).
  3. [Fig. 2(c) caption] The label 'Hd c = 0' appears garbled; please clarify the measurement condition (presumably zero dc field).
  4. [Fig. 3 inset] The 'subtle slope inflection at ~75 K' is marked with green guide lines, but the inset is very small; consider enlarging the inset or adding an arrow to make the feature visible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partially circular: the UMn = 2 eV DFT semimetallic band structure is fitted to the experimental metallicity, but the magnetic ground-state assignment is robust across UMn values and thus retains independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II.D (Methods, Theoretical Calculations); Section III.F (Electronic Structure); SM Section G (Band structures)]
    "our tests show that moderate values (2.0 eV and 3.0 eV) provide a more accurate description of both the lattice constants and the electronic structure when compared to our experimental data. Therefore, we present the results obtained with UMn = 2.0 eV in the main text. ... Calculations with UEu = 5.0 eV and UMn = 5.0 eV predict a narrow band gap of 50–60 meV, which contradicts the observed metallic behavior. However, setting UEu = 5.0 eV and UMn = 2.0 eV yields a semimetallic band structure that aligns well with experimental observations."

    The Hubbard parameter UMn is selected because it reproduces the measured lattice constants and the observed metallic transport. The subsequent statement that the UMn = 2.0 eV calculation 'yields a semimetallic band structure that aligns well with experimental observations', together with the small DOS being called 'consistent with the low carrier density revealed by the Hall resistivity measurements', is therefore a consistency check on a fitted parameter rather than an independent first-principles prediction. The circularity is real but localized: the magnetic ground state (EuAA-MnAA-A) is shown in Table III and Fig. S7 to be lowest over a broad UMn range of about 1.6 to 5 eV, so the spin-configuration conclusion is not forced by the UMn choice and carries independent content.

full rationale

The paper's central experimental claim - that Eu2CuMn2P3 shows multiple magnetic orderings at 80 K, 29 K, and 14.5 K - is established by magnetization, ac susceptibility, heat capacity, and transport data, not by a fitted calculation. The 80 K Mn ordering is admittedly indirect (a subtle ac-susceptibility peak and a weak Cp/T slope inflection, with the authors noting 'whether it is long-range or short-range remains undetermined'), but that is an evidence-strength concern, not a circularity: the anomaly is measured, and the assignment to Mn is made by exclusion and comparison with parent compounds. Similarly, the attribution of the 29 K and 14.5 K anomalies to the EuCuP and EuMn2P2 blocks rests on the explicitly stated assumption that 'the exchange interactions within the BLs of Eu2CuMn2P3 should not differ significantly from those in the respective compounds'. That is a physical premise, testable by future neutron work, and not a definitional reduction. The block-layer design strategy is supported by citations to the authors' prior work (refs. 20 and 21), but the successful synthesis is independently verified by single-crystal and powder XRD, and the properties are measured rather than derived from those citations, so this self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular way. The one genuine circular step is the DFT band-structure claim: UMn = 2 eV is chosen partly because it yields the experimentally observed metallicity, and the same calculation is then presented as 'aligning well' with experiment. The magnetic-energy calculations are insulated from this problem because the ground state is robust over a wide UMn range. Overall, the derivation is not equivalent to its inputs; one fitted parameter is renamed as agreement, giving a moderate circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only new entity is the material itself; no new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The DFT spin-structure conclusions depend on a fitted Hubbard U and collinear spin assumptions, and the transition assignments rely on parent-compound analogies. These assumptions are the main hidden costs of the proposed magnetic picture.

free parameters (2)
  • UMn (Hubbard U for Mn 3d orbitals) = 2.0 eV
    Chosen to reproduce experimental lattice constants and the observed metallic transport; tests over 0-5 eV show UMn = 5 eV gives a semiconducting gap that contradicts experiment. Used for magnetic energy and band structure calculations.
  • UEu (Hubbard U for Eu 4f orbitals) = 5.0 eV
    Taken from earlier Eu2+ studies rather than fitted here; an input choice that affects the Eu 4f treatment in the DFT calculations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GGA-PBE + Hubbard U total energies distinguish the true magnetic ground state among the 15 collinear spin configurations.
    The method is standard but is not validated against neutron or REXS data for this compound; the EuAA-MnAA-A assignment in Section III.D relies on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Eu and Mn moments in Eu2CuMn2P3 remain collinear, as in the cited parent compounds.
    Section III.D states that only collinear spin structures were evaluated, following collinearity in EuCuP, EuMn2P2, and related Mn compounds. Non-collinear states are not considered.
  • domain assumption The 29 K and 14.5 K transitions can be assigned to specific block layers using parent-compound transition temperatures and similar intra-block exchange interactions.
    Section III.D: 'Given the proximity of the transition temperatures, it is reasonable to associate the AFM transition at 29 K with the EuCuP BL and the spin-reorientation transition at 14.5 K with the EuMn2P2 BL.' This is the weakest load-bearing premise for the spin-evolution scenario.
  • domain assumption The 80 K magnetic signal is intrinsic to the Mn sublattice and not due to impurity phases.
    Section III.B argues that Mn is the 'sole candidate' because Cu is nonmagnetic and Eu orders at 29 K, but this is an indirect exclusion; no local probe or scattering experiment confirms the Mn origin.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structural design and multiple magnetic orderings of the intergrowth compound Eu$_2$CuMn$_2$P$_3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFU5L7C5

@misc{pith2026250417415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structural design and multiple magnetic orderings of the intergrowth compound Eu$_2$CuMn$_2$P$_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFU5L7C5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17415}
}
abstract

We report the design, synthesis, crystal structure, and physical properties of a layered intergrowth compound, Eu$_2$CuMn$_2$P$_3$. The structure of Eu$_2$CuMn$_2$P$_3$ features an alternating arrangement of hexagonal EuCuP block layers and trigonal EuMn$_2$P$_2$ block layers, interconnected through shared Eu planes. This structural hybridization leads to multiple magnetic orderings in Eu$_2$CuMn$_2$P$_3$: weak antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering of Mn at $T_\mathrm{N}^\mathrm{Mn}$ = 80 K, AFM ordering of Eu at $T_\mathrm{N}^\mathrm{Eu}$ = 29 K, a spin-reorientation transition at $T_\mathrm{SR}$ = 14.5 K, and weak ferromagnetism below $T_\mathrm{N}^\mathrm{Mn}$. The spin configurations at different temperature regions were discussed based on the calculations of magnetic energies for various collinear arrangements. Resistivity measurements reveal a pronounced transition peak at $T_\mathrm{N}^\mathrm{Eu}$, which is suppressed in the presence of a magnetic field, resulting in a significant negative magnetoresistance effect. The computed semimetallic band structure, characterized by a small density of states at the Fermi level, aligns well with experimental observations. The successful synthesis of Eu$_2$CuMn$_2$P$_3$ and its fascinating magnetic properties highlight the effectiveness of our block-layer design strategy. By assembling magnetic block layers of compounds with compatible crystal symmetries and closely matched lattice parameters, this approach opens exciting avenues for discovering layered materials with unique magnetic behaviors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Crystal structures of EuCuP (left), Eu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Magnetic behaviors of Eu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Specific heat divided by temperature ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: As the temperature decreases, AFM ordering at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Proposed AFM spin configurations in different temperature regions. (a) Some important inter-plane magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Temperature-dependent in-plane resistivity under various applied magnetic fields. The inset shows a photo of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Calculated band structure of Eu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. W. McKinney, P. Gorai, S. Manna, E. Toberer, and V. Stevanovi´ c, Ionic vs. van der Waals layered materi- als: identification and comparison of elastic anisotropy, J. Mater. Chem. A 6, 15828 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    ( √ 2× 7.942 + 2× 5.922) for two Eu 2+ and two Mn2+ ions

    for two Eu 2+ ions, which is considerably lower than the sum of the free ion values of 14.0 µB/f.u. ( √ 2× 7.942 + 2× 5.922) for two Eu 2+ and two Mn2+ ions. The absence of Mn contribution to the paramagnetic (PM) susceptibility is a common fea- ture in CaAl 2Si2-type Mn-based compounds, attributed to strong AFM correlations well above the ordering tem- p...

    work page

  3. [3]

    J. Yang, Y. Zhang, Y. Ge, S. Tang, J. Li, H. Zhang, X. Shi, Z. Wang, and X. Tian, Interlayer Engineering of Layered Materials for Efficient Ion Separation and Stor- age, Adv. Mater. 36, 2311141 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Willner and B

    I. Willner and B. Willner, Layered molecular optoelec- tronic assemblies, J. Mater. Chem. 8, 2543 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Massidda, J

    S. Massidda, J. Yu, A. J. Freeman, and D. D. Koelling, Electronic structure and properties of YBa 2Cu3O7−δ, a low dimensional, low density of states superconductor, Phys. Lett. A 122, 198 (1987)

    work page 1987

  6. [6]

    Gascoin, S

    F. Gascoin, S. Ottensmann, D. Stark, S. M. Ha¨ ıle, and G. J. Snyder, Zintl Phases as Thermoelectric Ma- terials: Tuned Transport Properties of the Compounds CaxYb1−xZn2Sb2, Adv. Funct. Mater. 15, 1860 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    D. J. Scalapino, A common thread: The pairing inter- action for unconventional superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1383 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Possible highTc super- conductivity in the Ba–La–Cu–O system, Z. Phys. B - Condens. Matter 64, 189 (1986)

    work page 1986

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    M. K. Wu, J. R. Ashburn, C. J. Torng, P. H. Hor, R. L. Meng, L. Gao, Z. J. Huang, Y. Q. Wang, and C. W. Chu, Superconductivity at 93 K in a new mixed-phase Y-Ba- Cu-O compound system at ambient pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 908 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    Tokura and T

    Y. Tokura and T. Arima, New Classification Method for Layered Copper Oxide Compounds and Its Application to Design of New HighTc Superconductors, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 29, 2388 (1990)

    1990

  3. [11]

    Park and R

    C. Park and R. L. Snyder, Structures of High- Temperature Cuprate Superconductors, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 78, 3171 (1995)

    1995

  4. [12]

    Kamihara, T

    Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, Iron-Based Layered Superconductor La[O 1−xFx]FeAs (x = 0.05–0.12) with Tc = 26 K, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 3296 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Rotter, M

    M. Rotter, M. Tegel, and D. Johrendt, Superconductivity at 38 K in the Iron Arsenide (Ba 1−xKx)Fe2As2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 107006 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    X. C. Wang, Q. Q. Liu, Y. X. Lv, W. B. Gao, L. X. Yang, R. C. Yu, F. Y. Li, and C. Q. Jin, The superconductivity at 18 K in LiFeAs system, Solid State Commun.148, 538 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Hsu, J.-Y

    F.-C. Hsu, J.-Y. Luo, K.-W. Yeh, T.-K. Chen, T.-W. Huang, P. M. Wu, Y.-C. Lee, Y.-L. Huang, Y.-Y. Chu, D.-C. Yan, and M.-K. Wu, Superconductivity in the PbO-type structure α-FeSe, PNAS 105, 14262 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    D. Li, K. Lee, B. Y. Wang, M. Osada, S. Crossley, H. R. Lee, Y. Cui, Y. Hikita, and H. Y. Hwang, Supercon- ductivity in an infinite-layer nickelate, Nature 572, 624 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang, and M. Wang, Signatures of superconductivity near 80 K in a nickelate under high pressure, Nature621, 493 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Y. Zhu, D. Peng, E. Zhang, B. Pan, X. Chen, L. Chen, H. Ren, F. Liu, Y. Hao, N. Li, Z. Xing, F. Lan, J. Han, 12 J. Wang, D. Jia, H. Wo, Y. Gu, Y. Gu, L. Ji, W. Wang, H. Gou, Y. Shen, T. Ying, X. Chen, W. Yang, H. Cao, C. Zheng, Q. Zeng, J.-g. Guo, and J. Zhao, Superconduc- tiv...

    2024

  11. [19]

    J. R. Chamorro and T. M. McQueen, Progress toward Solid State Synthesis by Design, Acc. Chem. Res. 51, 2918 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, and K. A. Persson, Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Mater. 1, 011002 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Z. Wang, S. Wu, L. Ji, and G. Cao, Block-layer model for intergrowth structures, Nano Res. 14, 3629 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Wang and G.-H

    Z.-C. Wang and G.-H. Cao, Self-doped iron-based super- conductors with intergrowth structures, Acta Phys. Sin. 67, 207406 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Y.-L. Sun, H. Jiang, H.-F. Zhai, J.-K. Bao, W.-H. Jiao, Q. Tao, C.-Y. Shen, Y.-W. Zeng, Z.-A. Xu, and G.-H. Cao, Ba 2Ti2Fe2As4O: A New Superconductor Contain- ing Fe2As2 Layers and Ti 2O Sheets, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 12893 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Liu, Y.-B

    Y. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, Z.-T. Tang, H. Jiang, Z.-C. Wang, A. Ablimit, W.-H. Jiao, Q. Tao, C.-M. Feng, Z.-A. Xu, and G.-H. Cao, Superconductivity and ferromagnetism in hole-doped RbEuFe 4As4, Phys. Rev. B 93, 214503 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Liu, Y.-B

    Y. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, Q. Chen, Z.-T. Tang, W.-H. Jiao, Q. Tao, Z.-A. Xu, and G.-H. Cao, A new ferromagnetic superconductor: CsEuFe 4As4, Sci. Bull. 61, 1213 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Wang, C.-Y

    Z.-C. Wang, C.-Y. He, S.-Q. Wu, Z.-T. Tang, Y. Liu, A. Ablimit, C.-M. Feng, and G.-H. Cao, Superconduc- tivity in KCa 2Fe4As4F2 with Separate Double Fe 2As2 Layers, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138, 7856 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Wang, C.-Y

    Z.-C. Wang, C.-Y. He, S.-Q. Wu, Z.-T. Tang, Y. Liu, A. Ablimit, Q. Tao, C.-M. Feng, Z.-A. Xu, and G.- H. Cao, Superconductivity at 35 K by self doping in RbGd2Fe4As4O2, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 11LT01 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Z. Wang, C. He, Z. Tang, S. Wu, and G. Cao, Crys- tal structure and superconductivity at about 30 K in ACa2Fe4As4F2 (A = Rb, Cs), Sci. China Mater. 60, 83 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Wu, Z.-C

    S.-Q. Wu, Z.-C. Wang, C.-Y. He, Z.-T. Tang, Y. Liu, and G.-H. Cao, Superconductivity at 33–37 ALn2Fe4As4O2 (A = K and Cs; Ln = lanthanides), Phys. Rev. Mater. 1, 044804 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Shao, Z.-C

    Y.-T. Shao, Z.-C. Wang, B.-Z. Li, S.-Q. Wu, J.-F. Wu, Z. Ren, S.-W. Qiu, C. Rao, C. Wang, and G.-H. Cao, BaTh2Fe4As4(N0.7O0.3)2: An iron-based superconductor stabilized by inter-block-layer charge transfer, Sci. China Mater. 62, 1357 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Tomuschat and H.-U

    C. Tomuschat and H.-U. Schuster, ABX-Verbindungen mit modifizierter Ni 2In-Struktur, Z. Naturforsch. B 36, 1193 (1981)

    1981

  24. [32]

    R¨ uhl and W

    R. R¨ uhl and W. Jeitschko, New pnictides with Ce2O2S- type structure, Mater. Res. Bull. 14, 513 (1979)

    1979

  25. [33]

    Frik and A

    L. Frik and A. Mewis, Stapelvarianten aus SrPtSb- und CaAl2Si2-analogen Baubl¨ ocken, Z. anorg. allg. Chem. 625, 126 (1999)

    1999

  26. [34]

    Mewis, ABX-Verbindungen mit Ni 2In-Struktur Darstellung und Struktur der Verbindungen CaCuP(As), SrCuP(As), SrAgP(As) und EuCuAs, Z

    A. Mewis, ABX-Verbindungen mit Ni 2In-Struktur Darstellung und Struktur der Verbindungen CaCuP(As), SrCuP(As), SrAgP(As) und EuCuAs, Z. Naturforsch. B 33, 983 (1978)

    1978

  27. [35]

    Kl¨ ufers and A

    P. Kl¨ ufers and A. Mewis, AB 2X2-Verbindungen im CaAl2Si2-Typ, III Zur Struktur der Verbindungen CaZn2P2, CaCd 2P2, CaZn 2As2 und CaCd 2As2, Z. Naturforsch. B 32, 753 (1977)

    1977

  28. [36]

    Kl¨ ufers, H

    P. Kl¨ ufers, H. Neumann, A. Mewis, and H.-U. Schus- ter, AB2X2-Verbindungen im CaAl2Si2-Typ, VIII [1], Z. Naturforsch. B 35, 1317 (1980)

    1980

  29. [37]

    W. Iha, M. Kakihana, S. Matsuda, F. Honda, Y. Haga, T. Takeuchi, M. Nakashima, Y. Amako, J. Gouchi, Y. Uwatoko, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, Anomalous ferromagnetic ordering in EuCuP, J. Alloys Compd. 788, 361 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    J. Wang, J. Shen, Y. Wang, T. Liang, X. Wang, R. Zu, S. Zhang, Q. Zeng, E. Liu, and X. Xu, Anisotropic magneto-transport behavior in a hexagonal ferromag- netic EuCuP single crystal, J. Alloys Compd. 947, 169620 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    A. F. May, E. M. Clements, H. Zhang, R. P. Hermann, J. Yan, and M. A. McGuire, Coupling of magnetism, crys- tal lattice, and transport in EuCuP and EuCuAs, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 064406 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    J. Yuan, X. Shi, H. Du, W. Xia, X. Wang, J. Cheng, B. Wang, R. Zhong, S. Zhang, and Y. Guo, Magnetiza- tion dependent anisotropic topological properties in Eu- CuP, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 094202 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    A. C. Payne, A. E. Sprauve, M. M. Olmstead, S. M. Kauzlarich, J. Y. Chan, B. A. Reisner, and J. W. Lynn, Synthesis, Magnetic and Electronic Properties of Single Crystals of EuMn 2P2, J. Solid State Chem. 163, 498 (2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    Berry, N

    T. Berry, N. Varnava, D. H. Ryan, V. J. Stewart, R. Rasta, I. Heinmaa, N. Kumar, W. Schnelle, R. Bhan- dia, C. M. Pasco, N. P. Armitage, R. Stern, C. Felser, D. Vanderbilt, and T. M. McQueen, Bonding and Sup- pression of a Magnetic Phase Transition in EuMn 2P2, J. Am. Chem. So...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Krebber, J

    S. Krebber, J. Sichelschmidt, P. Chailloleau, A. E. Mard, M. Kopp, M. Baenitz, K. Kummer, D. V. Vyalikh, J. M¨ uller, C. Krellner, and K. Kliemt, Magnetic frustra- tion and weak Mn magnetic ordering in EuMn2P2 (2025), arXiv:2501.01355 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    See the Supplemental Material for powder x-ray diffrac- tion pattern, supplementary Curie–Weiss analysis and M(H) curves, calculated cell parameters and magnetic energies, supplementary resistivity data, and different calculated band structures of Eu 2Mn2CuP3

  37. [45]

    G. M. Sheldrick, Crystal structure refinement with SHELXL, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C 71, 3 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  40. [48]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  41. [49]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  42. [50]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Electron-energy-loss spec- tra and the structural stability of nickel oxide: An LSDA+U study, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998). 13

    1998

  43. [51]

    L.-L. Wang, N. H. Jo, B. Kuthanazhi, Y. Wu, R. J. Mc- Queeney, A. Kaminski, and P. C. Canfield, Single pair of Weyl fermions in the half-metallic semimetal EuCd 2As2, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245147 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    X. Chen, Z. Wang, Z. Zhou, W. Yang, Y. Liu, J.-Y. Lu, Z. Ren, G.-H. Cao, F. Tafti, S. Dong, and Z.-C. Wang, Manipulating magnetism and transport proper- ties of EuCd 2P2 with a low carrier concentration, Phys. Rev. B 109, 224428 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    CCDC 2410809 contains the supplementary crystallo- graphic data for Eu 2Mn2CuP3

  46. [54]

    X. Chen, S. Dong, and Z.-C. Wang, Recent advances in understanding and manipulating magnetic and electronic properties of Eu M2X2 (M = Zn, Cd; X = P, As), J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 37, 033001 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    N. S. Sangeetha, S. Pakhira, Q.-P. Ding, L. Krause, H.-C. Lee, V. Smetana, A.-V. Mudring, B. B. Iversen, Y. Furukawa, and D. C. Johnston, First-order antifer- romagnetic transitions of SrMn 2P2 and CaMn 2P2 sin- gle crystals containing corrugated-honeycomb Mn sub- lattices, PN...

    2021

  48. [56]

    V. K. Anand and D. C. Johnston, Metallic behavior induced by potassium doping of the trigonal antiferro- magnetic insulator EuMn 2As2, Phys. Rev. B 94, 014431 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Dahal, Y

    A. Dahal, Y. Chen, T. Heitmann, A. Thamizhavel, U. Paramanik, S. K. Dhar, and D. K. Singh, Spin cor- relation in trigonal EuMn 2As2, Phys. Rev. B 99, 085135 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    N. S. Sangeetha, A. Pandey, Z. A. Benson, and D. C. Johnston, Antiferromagnetism in trigonal SrMn2As2 and CaMn2As2 single crystals, Phys. Rev. B 94, 094417 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    de Jongh and A

    L. de Jongh and A. Miedema, Experiments on simple magnetic model systems, Adv. Phys. 23, 1 (1974)

    1974

  52. [60]

    Mewis, AB 2X2-Verbindungen im CaAl 2Si2-Typ, V[1] Zur Struktur der Verbindungen CaMn 2P2, CaMn 2As2, SrMn2P2 und SrMn 2As2, Z

    A. Mewis, AB 2X2-Verbindungen im CaAl 2Si2-Typ, V[1] Zur Struktur der Verbindungen CaMn 2P2, CaMn 2As2, SrMn2P2 und SrMn 2As2, Z. Naturforsch. B 33, 606 (1978)

    1978

  53. [61]

    Pakhira, Y

    S. Pakhira, Y. Lee, L. Ke, and D. C. Johnston, Magnetic field induced ab-plane rotation of the Eu magnetic mo- ments in trigonal EuMg 2Bi2 and EuMg 2Sb2 single crys- tals below their N´ eel temperatures, Phys. Rev. B 106, 184423 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Z.-C. Wang, K. Thanabalasingam, J. P. Scheifers, A. Streeter, G. T. McCandless, J. Gaudet, C. M. Brown, C. U. Segre, J. Y. Chan, and F. Tafti, Antiferromag- netic Order and Spin-Canting Transition in the Corru- gated Square Net Compound Cu 3(TeO4)(SO4)·H3O, In- org. Chem. 60, ...

    2021

  55. [63]

    D. C. Johnston, Unified molecular field theory for collinear and noncollinear Heisenberg antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 91, 064427 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    M. E. Fisher, Relation between the specific heat and sus- ceptibility of an antiferromagnet, Philos. Mag. 7, 1731 (1962)

    1962

  57. [65]

    P. Das, N. S. Sangeetha, A. Pandey, Z. A. Benson, T. W. Heitmann, D. C. Johnston, A. I. Goldman, and A. Kreyssig, Collinear antiferromagnetism in trigonal SrMn2As2 revealed by single-crystal neutron diffraction, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 035802 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Z. Zhou, Z. Wang, X. Chen, J.-Y. Lu, J. Zhang, X. Luo, G.-H. Cao, S. Dong, and Z.-C. Wang, Unusual magnetic and transport properties in the Zintl phase Eu11Zn6As12, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 114421 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    A. F. May, C. Tabata, S. Okamoto, B. R. Ortiz, A. D. Christianson, J. Yan, K. Kaneko, and M. A. McGuire, Physical properties of intergrowth compound Eu2CuZn2P3, Phys. Rev. Mater. 9, 024406 (2025). Supplemental Materials: Structural design and multiple magnetic orderings of the...

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Figure S1 and Table S1: Chemical composition analysis of Eu 2CuMn2P3

  61. [69]

    Figure S2: Supplementary Curie–Weiss analysis and M(H) curves

  62. [70]

    Figure S3: Powder x-ray diffraction pattern for Eu 2CuMn2P3 at room temperature

  63. [71]

    Figure S4: Curie–Weiss analysis and M(H) curves for the polycrystalline Eu2CuMn2P3

  64. [72]

    Figures S5 and S6: Supplementary resistivity data for single crystal with c-axis fields and polycrystalline sample

  65. [73]

    Table S2 and Figure S7: Cell parameters and magnetic energies calculated with dif- ferentUMn values

  66. [74]

    Chemical composition analysis of Eu 2CuMn2P3 FIG

    Figure S8: Band structures calculated with different UMn values and spin configura- tions S2 A. Chemical composition analysis of Eu 2CuMn2P3 FIG. S1. A representative scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image and corresponding energy- dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX) spectru...

    2023

Pith tools

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