↓ Skip to main content

Negative Poisson’s ratio in 1T-type crystalline two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Negative Poisson’s ratio in 1T-type crystalline two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides
Published in
Nature Communications, May 2017
DOI 10.1038/ncomms15224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liping Yu, Qimin Yan, Adrienn Ruzsinszky

Abstract

Materials with a negative Poisson's ratio, also known as auxetic materials, exhibit unusual and counterintuitive mechanical behaviour-becoming fatter in cross-section when stretched. Such behaviour is mostly attributed to some special re-entrant or hinged geometric structures regardless of the chemical composition and electronic structure of a material. Here, using first-principles calculations, we report a class of auxetic single-layer two-dimensional materials, namely, the 1T-type monolayer crystals of groups 6-7 transition-metal dichalcogenides, MX2 (M=Mo, W, Tc, Re; X=S, Se, Te). These materials have a crystal structure distinct from all other known auxetic materials. They exhibit an intrinsic in-plane negative Poisson's ratio, which is dominated by electronic effects. We attribute the occurrence of such auxetic behaviour to the strong coupling between the chalcogen p orbitals and the intermetal t2g-bonding orbitals within the basic triangular pyramid structure unit. The unusual auxetic behaviour in combination with other remarkable properties of monolayer two-dimensional materials could lead to novel multi-functionalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 27%
Student > Master 9 11%
Researcher 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Professor 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 16 20%
Physics and Astronomy 13 16%
Chemistry 10 12%
Engineering 5 6%
Chemical Engineering 3 4%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 28 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,165,673
of 24,522,750 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#44,748
of 52,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,154
of 317,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#894
of 1,051 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,522,750 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 52,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,051 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.