Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Awakening catalytically active surface of BaRuO3 thin film for alkaline hydrogen evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A perovskite oxide film's surface wakes up into a top-tier hydrogen catalyst after one voltage cycle.

desk verdict Solid experimental study of BaRuO3 surface reconstruction for alkaline HER, but the DFT mechanism hangs on an unvalidated correction scheme. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.05363 v1 pith:6S74RUN4 submitted 2025-12-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jegon Lee , Dohyun Kim , Seulgi Ji , Sangmoon Yoon , Seung Hyun Nam , Jucheol Park , Jin Young Oh , Seung Gyo Jeong
show 4 more authors
Jong-Seong Bae Sang A Lee Heechae Choi Woo Seok Choi
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords hydrogenevolutionreactionperovskiteoxideBaRuO3epitaxialthinfilmsurfacereconstructionclusterleachingelectrocatalysis
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 an epitaxial thin film of the perovskite oxide BaRuO3, which starts as a poor catalyst for the alkaline hydrogen evolution reaction, becomes one of the most active ruthenium-based catalysts reported after a single electrochemical cycle. The activation is caused by selective leaching of barium atoms from the surface into the electrolyte, leaving behind ruthenium clusters (modeled as Ru6) that strongly adsorb hydrogen intermediates. The enhanced activity is transient: with continued cycling, more barium leaves, ruthenium coverage rises, and activity decays to a steady state similar to RuO2. The paper further proposes that making the film thicker stabilizes the activated state, because a thicker BaRuO3 reservoir buffers barium loss and preserves the optimal low ruthenium coverage. A sympathetic reader would care because this identifies a concrete, controllable mechanism for turning a cheap, stable perovskite into a high-performance hydrogen catalyst.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the dynamic formation of surface Ru6 clusters on the BaRuO3 (BRO) perovskite lattice. Selective Ba leaching under alkaline conditions removes A-site cations, leaving a ruthenium-rich surface that reorganizes into thermodynamically favored Ru6 clusters. These clusters, studied through DFT with varying surface coverages (7%, 11%, 25%), create an interfacial dipole moment that modifies the electrostatic potential at adsorption sites, thereby tuning the Gibbs free energy of H* and H2O intermediates. The competition between beneficial low Ru coverage and detrimental high Ru coverage, governed by the balance of Ba leaching and Ru accumulation, explains the activity peak an

What would settle it

Direct atomic-resolution imaging of the activated surface, for example aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopy combined with electron energy-loss spectroscopy or operando Raman spectroscopy, could determine whether discrete Ru6 clusters actually exist on the BaRuO3 surface after one HER cycle, or whether the active species is instead amorphous RuOx, isolated Ru adatoms, or a Ba-deficient but cluster-free surface. A second falsifier would be to measure the activation on a sample where barium is deliberately removed without electrochemistry: if the same high activity appea

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the alkaline hydrogen evolution activity of 3C BaRuO3 epitaxial thin films is governed by a dynamic surface reconstruction in which selective barium leaching creates ruthenium-rich clusters on the surface. Based on mass activity at 100 mV overpotential, the intrinsic performance jumps from 0.11 A/mgRu in the pristine state to 7.72 A/mgRu immediately after the first HER cycle, then declines and saturates at 1.05 A/mgRu after dozens of cycles. Density functional theory calculations attribute the high activity to Ru6 clusters on the BaRuO3 surface: at low ruthenium coverage, the Ru6/BRO interface produces an electric dipole that promotes H* adsorption and H2O activatio

Load-bearing premise

The identity of the active species as Ru6 clusters is assumed from thermodynamic calculations and a prior reference, not from direct atomic-scale observation; the experimental evidence shows 'possible Ru clusters' and a Ru3+ XPS signal that could also arise from oxygen vacancies or a local Ru-rich phase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims are correct, a single pre-conditioning voltage cycle can activate an epitaxial perovskite oxide to mass activities competitive with the best reported ruthenium-based HER catalysts in alkaline media.
  • The proposed mechanism predicts that other perovskite ruthenates with leachable A-site cations can be similarly awakened, provided the A-site leaching rate is sufficient to create low ruthenium coverage but not so fast as to over-cover the surface.
  • Thickness engineering of oxide supports offers a practical stabilization route: increasing the effective thickness of the barium reservoir extends the lifetime of the highly active surface, a principle transferable to powder or supported catalysts.
  • The saturation of activity to a state resembling RuO2 after extensive cycling provides a predictive endpoint: catalysts with excessively high ruthenium surface coverage will converge to modest, RuO2-like performance.
  • The DFT-derived relationship between Ru cluster coverage, interfacial dipole, and adsorption energetics gives a quantitative target (near-zero ΔG_H* at low coverage) for screening other oxide-supported ruthenium cluster systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to deliberately pre-leach barium from BaRuO3 powders or films in controlled alkaline baths before electrochemical operation, thereby engineering the initial ruthenium coverage to match the optimal low-coverage condition and skipping the transient activation phase.
  • The authors' interpretation implies that the lifetime of the activated state is set by the ratio of available barium in the subsurface to the rate of barium dissolution; a similar buffering effect might be achieved by doping the film with a sacrificial A-site element that leaches more slowly, rather than by increasing total thickness.
  • Because the XPS Ru3+ signal is ambiguous and the STEM images show only 'possible' Ru clusters, the broader implication is that operando or high-resolution aberration-corrected STEM coupled with electron energy-loss spectroscopy could directly image Ru6 clusters and validate whether other cluster sizes or amorphous RuOx phases contribute to the activity.
  • The success of thickness stabilization suggests that core-shell or scaffolded architectures with an oxide core that continuously resupplies barium could mimic the thick-film effect in high-surface-area electrodes, which would be a practical next step beyond thin films.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports that epitaxial 3C BaRuO3 (BRO) thin films undergo dynamic surface reconstruction during alkaline hydrogen evolution (HER), where selective Ba leaching produces a Ru-rich surface with possible Ru clusters. Electrochemical cycling first dramatically increases HER activity (mass activity 7.72 A/mgRu at 100 mV overpotential), which then decays to a saturated state (1.05 A/mgRu). Density functional theory (DFT) calculations are used to attribute the activated state to Ru6 clusters at low Ru coverage on the BRO surface, which promote H* adsorption, while higher Ru coverage hinders H2O adsorption and lowers activity. Thicker films (≥50 nm) maintain the activated state longer, which the authors propose as a stabilization strategy.

Significance. If the Ru6/BRO mechanism is correct, the paper offers a well-characterized epitaxial model system for studying dynamic surface reconstruction in perovskite electrocatalysts and a practical thickness-engineering approach to stabilize the active phase. The experimental backbone—Ba leaching confirmed by XPS, ICP-MS, and STEM-EDS, together with thickness-dependent activity trends—is compelling and uses complementary techniques. The DFT calculations are not fitted to the measured activity, so the theoretical model is not circular in the narrow sense. However, the central causal attribution to a specific Ru6 cluster geometry depends on a non-standard DFT correction in Eq. 1 that is not independently validated, and on indirect experimental evidence for the cluster identity. The work is therefore significant but requires stronger support for the claimed mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. 1] Eq. 1 adds a pH term (ΔG_pH = k_BT ln10 × pH) and an eΔV electrostatic correction from ref. [70] to the adsorption free energy. The pH term is not part of the standard computational hydrogen electrode; at pH 13 it contributes ~0.77 eV and can double-count the RHE reference if the electron potential is not shifted consistently. The magnitude of ΔV is not reported in the main text or Table S4, and the ordering of ΔG_H* values (e.g., 0.11 eV for BRO(7) Int vs 0.86 eV for BRO(25) Ru) is the principal quantitative support for the activity peak/decline. Please validate Eq. 1 on a benchmark Ru/RuO2 surface and provide all ΔV values and the pH correction procedure explicitly.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. S13 and Fig. 3g–i] The identity of the active cluster as Ru6 is inferred from 'possible Ru clusters' in STEM and from a surface Gibbs free-energy condition (Fig. S14) that is not described in detail. The Ru3+ XPS signal is also consistent with oxygen vacancies or a local Ru-rich phase, as the authors themselves note. Since the coverage-dependent DFT mechanism would change for other cluster sizes or an amorphous Ru/RuOx phase, the causal attribution to Ru6 is not yet secure. Please provide direct atomic-scale evidence or a sensitivity analysis over cluster sizes and configurations, including the actual computed ΔG_S values for Ru6 formation.
  3. [Section 2.3 and Fig. 1c–d] The electrochemical measurements appear to be presented without error bars or replicate counts. The headline mass activity of 7.72 A/mgRu is a single value for one film, and the cycle-dependent overpotential trends in Fig. 1c are not accompanied by statistical uncertainty. Given that the paper claims one of the highest Ru-based mass activities reported, this is a load-bearing quantitative claim. Please report the number of independent samples and standard deviations, or clearly state that the trends are representative single measurements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. S7 vs Fig. S6] The text says 'see Fig. S7 for the STEM-EDS result' but later refers to 'the STEM-EDS results for the activated BRO, as shown in Fig. S6.' Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Section 2.4] The DFT setup uses a Gamma-centered 1×1×1 k-point grid and a force convergence criterion of 0.1 eV/Å. Please justify that gamma-only sampling is sufficient for the supercell sizes used and that the force criterion does not affect the reported adsorption-energy differences.
  3. [Eq. 1] Define all symbols in Eq. 1 on first use, especially ΔV and ΔG_ads*, and state the sign convention for eΔV explicitly.
  4. [Fig. 1b] The rainbow representation of 100 CV cycles is difficult to read; consider labeling selected cycles (1st, 2nd, 20th, 50th, 100th) directly on the plot.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract states the mass activity values without specifying that they are at 100 mV overpotential and refer to the 30-nm film; please add these conditions for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DFT trend is computed, not fitted, and the Ru6 assumption/eΔV correction are model dependencies, not by-construction reductions to the measured activity.

full rationale

The central experimental finding—mass activity rising from 0.11 to 7.72 A/mgRu after the first HER cycle and then falling to 1.05 A/mgRu—is a measured input, not an output of the DFT model. The DFT ΔG_H* values are obtained from first-principles adsorption calculations plus vibrational and electrostatic corrections; nothing in the text indicates that these energies were fitted to the measured activity values or to the cycle number. The statement that BRO(7) Int has ΔG_H* = 0.11 eV and BRO(25) Ru has 0.86 eV, and that this 'aligns well with the experimental results,' is a post-hoc rationalization of a nonmonotonic trend, not a circular prediction. The choice of Ru6 as the active cluster is imported from ref [30] (no author overlap with this paper) and additionally checked by the authors' own surface Gibbs free energy calculation in Fig. S14; this is a modeling assumption rather than a self-imported conclusion. Eq. 1, including the eΔV and ΔG_pH terms, is cited to ref [70], which does share authors (S. Ji and H. Choi); this self-citation is a genuine methodological dependency. However, a methodological dependency is not circularity unless the result reduces to the cited work by construction, and no such reduction is shown here. The nonstandard pH/eΔV treatment is a legitimate correctness and benchmark-validation concern, but that belongs to robustness of the DFT support, not to circularity. The paper also honestly flags that STEM shows only 'possible Ru clusters', and that XPS Ru3+ could originate from oxygen vacancies or Ru-rich phases; this explicit limitation weakens the link between the observed reconstruction and the modeled Ru6 motif, but it is an evidentiary gap, not a by-construction equivalence. I could not identify any equation or fitted parameter that makes a predicted quantity identical to an input by definition, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central mechanistic claim depends on the identity of the Ru cluster (Ru6), on the validity of a free-energy correction from the authors' own prior work, and on standard DFT approximations. The Ru coverage levels in the supercell models are chosen by hand, not measured.

free parameters (1)
  • Ru surface coverages BRO(7/11/25) = 7%, 11%, 25%
    Hand-selected model coverages intended to represent low, intermediate, and high Ba leaching; the computed trend that low/intermediate coverage is optimal is used to explain the experimental rise-and-fall of activity. No direct measurement of actual Ru coverage is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ru6 is the thermodynamically favored Ru cluster under alkaline HER conditions (from ref [30])
    The paper states that the Ru6 configuration is thermodynamically favored among various Ru clusters based on a prior study, and uses this to select Ru6 as the primary phase in the DFT model.
  • domain assumption Surface Gibbs free energy for Ru6 formation on BRO is <= 0 across the experimental bias window
    Asserted in the main text with reference to Fig. S14; the calculation is not shown in the reviewed text and depends on the assumed Ba leaching and electrochemical boundary conditions.
  • standard math PBE-GGA + PAW DFT with 1x1x1 k-points and 0.1 eV/A force tolerance captures H*/H2O adsorption energetics
    Standard DFT setup, but loose convergence and known PBE errors on adsorption energies mean the 0.11 eV vs 0.86 eV ΔG_H* comparison should be treated as semi-quantitative.
  • domain assumption The eΔV electrostatic correction in Eq. 1, adopted from ref [70] with overlapping authors, is valid for Ru6/BRO interfaces
    The free-energy formula including the built-in-electric-field potential correction comes from the authors' prior work; its validity for this specific interface is not independently benchmarked.
invented entities (1)
  • Ru6/BRO active surface phase (Ru6 cluster adsorbed on BaRuO3 support)
    purpose: Proposed active configuration that enhances H* adsorption at low Ru coverage and loses activity at high coverage; used to explain the cycle-dependent HER activity and the thickness stabilization effect.
    No direct observation of Ru6 clusters is provided; STEM evidence is described as showing only 'possible Ru clusters' and the XPS low-oxidation Ru signal is ambiguous between oxygen vacancies and Ru-rich phases. The DFT model is a post-hoc rationalization rather than a falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Awakening catalytically active surface of BaRuO3 thin film for alkaline hydrogen evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6S74RUN4

@misc{pith2026251205363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Awakening catalytically active surface of BaRuO3 thin film for alkaline hydrogen evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6S74RUN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.05363}
}
read the original abstract

The dynamic reconstruction of surfaces during electrochemical reactions plays a crucial role in determining the performance of electrocatalysts. However, because reconstructions occur at the atomic level, direct observation and elucidation of the underlying mechanism are challenging for conventional powder type catalysts with ill defined lattices. In this study, the catalytically active surface of 3C BaRuO3 (BRO) epitaxial thin films emerges upon the dynamic introduction of surface Ru clusters, for the alkaline hydrogen evolution reaction (HER). Based on the mass activity at overpotential 100 mV, the intrinsic HER performance increases dramatically from 0.11 to 7.72 A/mg immediately after the initial HER cycle and eventually saturates at 1.05 A/mg after continuous operation. The formation of Ru clusters on the catalyst surface, driven by selective Ba leaching under alkaline HER conditions, is observed experimentally. Density functional theory calculations demonstrate that HER activity increased with enhanced H* adsorption owing to the dynamic Ru6 cluster formation. A strategy for stabilizing the 'awakened' active surface of BRO is further proposed by validating that the atomic-scale control of the film thickness can effectively maintain the highly active state. This study offers fundamental insights into the design and stabilization of the highly active Ru-based electrocatalysts for the alkaline HER.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references

  1. [70]

    S. Kim, S. Ji, S. Jeong, H. Yang, S. Lee, H. Choi, O.L. Li, Small 2024, 20, 2307483

    2024

  2. [1]

    Trasatti, J

    S. Trasatti, J. Electroanal. Chem. Interf. Electrochem. 1972, 39, 163-184

    1972

  3. [2]

    Nørskov, T

    J.K. Nørskov, T. Bligaard, A. Logadottir, J.R. Kitchin, J.G. Chen, S. Pandelov, U. Stimming, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2005, 152, J23

    2005

  4. [3]

    Rossmeisl, Z.W

    J. Rossmeisl, Z.W. Qu, H. Zhu, G.J. Kroes, J.K. Nørskov, J. Electroanal. Chem. 2007, 607, 83- 89

    2007

  5. [4]

    B. Zhou, R. Gao, J.-J. Zou, H. Yang, Small 2022, 18, 2202336

    2022

  6. [5]

    Y . Guo, L. Shi, X. Shi, T. Zhao, W. Tian, S. Zhang, D. Liu, Y . Li, F. Zhong and S. Zhao, Nat. Chem. Eng., 2025, 2, 474-483

    2025

  7. [6]

    Y . Guo, S. Li, W. Abebe, J. Wang, L. Shi, D. Liu and S. Zhao, Chin. J. Catal., 2024, 67, 21-53

    2024

  8. [7]

    Parsons, J.O.M

    R. Parsons, J.O.M. Bockris, Trans. Faraday Soc. 1951, 47, 914-928

    1951

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    Morales-Guio, L.-A

    C.G. Morales-Guio, L.-A. Stern, X. Hu, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 6555-6569

    2014

  2. [9]

    Miu, J.R

    E.V . Miu, J.R. McKone, G. Mpourmpakis, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 6420-6433

    2022

  3. [10]

    Seo, S.H

    B. Seo, S.H. Joo, Nano Converg. 2017, 4, 19

    2017

  4. [11]

    L. Kong, M. Zhong, W. Shuang, Y . Xu, X.-H. Bu, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2020, 49, 2378-2407

    2020

  5. [12]

    Zhang, J.-Y

    X.-Y . Zhang, J.-Y . Xie, Y . Ma, B. Dong, C.-G. Liu, Y .-M. Chai, Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 430, 132312

    2022

  6. [13]

    Konkena, J

    B. Konkena, J. Masa, A.J.R. Botz, I. Sinev, W. Xia, J. Koßmann, R. Drautz, M. Muhler, W. Schuhmann, ACS Catal. 2017, 7, 229-237

    2017

  7. [14]

    Z. Zhou, Y . Su, H. Tan, Y . Wang, Q. Huang, H. Wang, J. Wang, M. Kubo, Z. Ni, Y . Kong, S. Zhao, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2025, 147, 3994–4004

    2025

  8. [15]

    W. Wu, Y . Wu, D. Zheng, K. Wang, Z. Tang, Electrochim. Acta 2019, 320, 134568

    2019

  9. [16]

    P . Su, W. Pei, X. Wang, Y . Ma, Q. Jiang, J. Liang, S. Zhou, J. Zhao, J. Liu, G.Q. Lu, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 16044-16050

    2021

  10. [17]

    W. Li, H. Zhang, K. Zhang, W. Hu, Z. Cheng, H. Chen, X. Feng, T. Peng, Z. Kou, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 2022, 306, 121095

    2022

  11. [18]

    L. Gao, X. Cui, C.D. Sewell, J. Li, Z. Lin, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021, 50, 8428-8469

    2021

  12. [19]

    Q. Ji, Y . Kong, H. Tan, H. Duan, N. Li, B. Tang, Y . Wang, S. Feng, L. Lv, C. Wang, F. Hu, W. Zhang, L. Cai, W. Yan, ACS Catal. 2022, 12, 4318-4326

    2022

  13. [20]

    Tomboc, S

    G.M. Tomboc, S. Venkateshalu, Q.-T. Ngo, S. Choi, B.G. Pollet, H. Lee, K. Lee, Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 454, 140254

    2023

  14. [21]

    Q. Li, W. Luo, X. Cui, J. Shi, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2025, 64, e202500303

    2025

  15. [22]

    Q. Li, C. Chen, W. Luo, X. Yu, Z. Chang, F. Kong, L. Zhu, Y . Huang, H. Tian, X. Cui, J. Shi, Adv. Energy Mater . 2024, 14, 2304099

    2024

  16. [23]

    Fabbri, M

    E. Fabbri, M. Nachtegaal, T. Binninger, X. Cheng, B.-J. Kim, J. Durst, F. Bozza, T. Graule, R. Schäublin, L. Wiles, M. Pertoso, N. Danilovic, K.E. Ayers, T.J. Schmidt, Nat. Mater . 2017, 16, 925-931

    2017

  17. [24]

    H. Liao, X. Zhang, S. Niu, P . Tan, K. Chen, Y . Liu, G. Wang, M. Liu, J. Pan, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 2022, 307, 121150

    2022

  18. [25]

    H. Liu, R. Xie, Q. Wang, J. Han, Y . Han, J. Wang, H. Fang, J. Qi, M. Ding, W. Ji, B. He, W. Lü, Adv. Sci. 2023, 10, 2207128

    2023

  19. [26]

    J. Yu, X. Wu, D. Guan, Z. Hu, S.-C. Weng, H. Sun, Y . Song, R. Ran, W. Zhou, M. Ni, Z. Shao, Chem. Mater . 2020, 32, 4509-4517

    2020

  20. [27]

    Anantharaj, H

    S. Anantharaj, H. Sugime, S. Noda, Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 408, 127275

    2021

  21. [28]

    Q. Li, D. Wang, Q. Lu, T. Meng, M. Yan, L. Fan, Z. Xing, X. Yang, Small 2020, 16, 1906380

    2020

  22. [29]

    Seitz, C.F

    L.C. Seitz, C.F. Dickens, K. Nishio, Y . Hikita, J. Montoya, A. Doyle, C. Kirk, A. V ojvodic, H.Y . Hwang, J.K. Norskov, T.F. Jaramillo, Science 2016, 353, 1011-1014

    2016

  23. [30]

    Zhang, K.E

    Y . Zhang, K.E. Arpino, Q. Yang, N. Kikugawa, D.A. Sokolov, C.W. Hicks, J. Liu, C. Felser, G. Li, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 7784

    2022

  24. [31]

    J. Lee, P . Adiga, S.A. Lee, S.H. Nam, H.-A. Ju, M.-H. Jung, H.Y . Jeong, Y .-M. Kim, C. Wong, R. Elzein, R. Addou, K.A. Stoerzinger, W.S. Choi, Small 2021, 17, 2103632

    2021

  25. [32]

    Stoerzinger, W.S

    K.A. Stoerzinger, W.S. Choi, H. Jeen, H.N. Lee, Y . Shao-Horn, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 487-492

    2015

  26. [33]

    X. Liu, L. Zhang, Y . Zheng, Z. Guo, Y . Zhu, H. Chen, F. Li, P . Liu, B. Yu, X. Wang, J. Liu, Y . Chen, M. Liu, Adv. Sci. 2019, 6, 1801898

    2019

  27. [34]

    Wang, K.A

    L. Wang, K.A. Stoerzinger, L. Chang, X. Yin, Y . Li, C.S. Tang, E. Jia, M.E. Bowden, Z. Yang, A. Abdelsamie, L. You, R. Guo, J. Chen, A. Rusydi, J. Wang, S.A. Chambers, Y . Du, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2019, 11, 12941-12947

    2019

  28. [35]

    Lee, S.-Y

    J. Lee, S.-Y . Jun, T. Choi, D. Jung, J.-S. Bae, S.A. Lee, W.S. Choi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2020, 117, 163906

    2020

  29. [36]

    Petrie, H

    J.R. Petrie, H. Jeen, S.C. Barron, T.L. Meyer, H.N. Lee, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 7252- 7255

    2016

  30. [37]

    S.A. Lee, S. Oh, J.-Y . Hwang, M. Choi, C. Youn, J.W. Kim, S.H. Chang, S. Woo, J.-S. Bae, S. Park, Y .-M. Kim, S. Lee, T. Choi, S.W. Kim, W.S. Choi, Energy Environ. Sci. 2017, 10, 924- 930

    2017

  31. [38]

    Buvat, M.J

    G. Buvat, M.J. Eslamibidgoli, A.H. Youssef, S. Garbarino, A. Ruediger, M. Eikerling, D. Guay, ACS Catal. 2020, 10, 806-817

    2020

  32. [39]

    Stoerzinger, O

    K.A. Stoerzinger, O. Diaz -Morales, M. Kolb, R.R. Rao, R. Frydendal, L. Qiao, X.R. Wang, N.B. Halck, J. Rossmeisl, H.A. Hansen, T. Vegge, I.E.L. Stephens, M.T.M. Koper, Y . Shao- Horn, ACS Energy Lett. 2017, 2, 876-881

    2017

  33. [40]

    Stoerzinger, R.R

    K.A. Stoerzinger, R.R. Rao, X.R. Wang, W.T. Hong, C.M. Rouleau, Y . Shao-Horn, Chem 2017, 2, 668-675

    2017

  34. [41]

    Poulain, A

    R. Poulain, A. Klein, J. Proost, J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 22252-22263

    2018

  35. [42]

    W. Li, H. Zhang, M. Hong, L. Zhang, X. Feng, M. Shi, W. Hu, S. Mu, Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 431, 134072

    2022

  36. [43]

    M. Cui, T. Liu, Q. Li, J. Yang, Y . Jia, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 15346-15353

    2019

  37. [44]

    S.A. Lee, J. Lee, S. Oh, S. Lee, J. -S. Bae, W. Chegal, M.S. Diware, S. Park, S.H. Chang, T. Choi, W.S. Choi, Sustain. Energy Fuels 2019, 3, 2867-2872

    2019

  38. [45]

    Y . Zhu, X. Zhong, S. Jin, H. Chen, Z. He, Q. Liu, Y . Chen, J. Mater. Chem. 2020, 8, 10957- 10965

    2020

  39. [46]

    Y . Kim, Y . Choi, S.A. Lee, W.S. Choi, K.T. Kang, Curr Appl Phys. 2024, 68, 113-130

    2024

  40. [47]

    Cherevko, S

    S. Cherevko, S. Geiger, O. Kasian, N. Kulyk, J.-P . Grote, A. Savan, B.R. Shrestha, S. Merzlikin, B. Breitbach, A. Ludwig, K.J.J. Mayrhofer, Catal. Today 2016, 262, 170-180

    2016

  41. [48]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Comput. Mater. Sci. 1996, 6, 15-50

    1996

  42. [49]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169-11186

    1996

  43. [50]

    Kresse, D

    G. Kresse, D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 1758-1775

    1999

  44. [51]

    Perdew, J.A

    J.P . Perdew, J.A. Chevary, S.H. V osko, K.A. Jackson, M.R. Pederson, D.J. Singh, C. Fiolhais, Phys. Rev. B 1992, 46, 6671-6687

    1992

  45. [52]

    Perdew, K

    J.P . Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865-3868

    1996

  46. [53]

    Monkhorst, J.D

    H.J. Monkhorst, J.D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B 1976, 13, 5188-5192

    1976

  47. [54]

    G. Chen, T. Wang, J. Zhang, P . Liu, H. Sun, X. Zhuang, M. Chen, X. Feng, Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1706279

    2018

  48. [55]

    Zhu, H.A

    Y . Zhu, H.A. Tahini, Z. Hu, J. Dai, Y . Chen, H. Sun, W. Zhou, M. Liu, S.C. Smith, H. Wang, Z. Shao, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 149

    2019

  49. [56]

    J. Dai, Y . Zhu, H.A. Tahini, Q. Lin, Y . Chen, D. Guan, C. Zhou, Z. Hu, H.-J. Lin, T.-S. Chan, C.-T. Chen, S.C. Smith, H. Wang, W. Zhou, Z. Shao, Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5657

    2020

  50. [57]

    M. Lao, G. Zhao, P . Li, T. Ma, Y . Jiang, H. Pan, S.X. Dou, W. Sun, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2100698

    2021

  51. [58]

    Y . Zhao, X. Zhang, Y . Gao, Z. Chen, Z. Li, T. Ma, Z. Wu, L. Wang, S. Feng, Small 2022, 18, 2105168

    2022

  52. [59]

    C. Li, S.H. Kim, H.Y . Lim, Q. Sun, Y . Jiang, H.-J. Noh, S.-J. Kim, J. Baek, S.K. Kwak, J. -B. Baek, Adv. Mater . 2023, 35, 2301369

    2023

  53. [60]

    Y . Zhou, Y . Liu, H. Tang, B.-L. Lin, J. Mater . Chem. 2023, 11, 10720-10726

    2023

  54. [61]

    Y . Zuo, S. Bellani, M. Ferri, G. Saleh, D.V . Shinde, M.I. Zappia, R. Brescia, M. Prato, L. De Trizio, I. Infante, F. Bonaccorso, L. Manna, Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 4680

    2023

  55. [62]

    W. Li, R. Liu, G. Yu, X. Chen, S. Yan, S. Ren, J. Chen, W. Chen, C. Wang, X. Lu, Small 2024, 20, 2307164

    2024

  56. [63]

    Lee, J.M

    S.A. Lee, J.M. Ok, J. Lee, J. -Y . Hwang, S. Yoon, S.-J. Park, S. Song, J.-S. Bae, S. Park, H.N. Lee, W.S. Choi, Adv. Energy Mater . 2021, 7, 2001111

    2021

  57. [64]

    Jiang, Y

    Y . Jiang, Y . Qin, W. Luo, H. Liu, W. Shen, Y . Jiang, M. Li, R. He, ChemElectroChem 2022, 9, e202101580

    2022

  58. [65]

    Y .J. Kim, Y . Gao, S.A. Chambers, Appl. Surf. Sci. 1997, 120, 250-260

    1997

  59. [66]

    Rama Rao, V .G

    M.V . Rama Rao, V .G. Sathe, D. Sornadurai, B. Panigrahi, T. Shripathi, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2001, 62, 797-806

    2001

  60. [67]

    Morgan, Surf

    D.J. Morgan, Surf. Interface Anal. 2015, 47, 1072-1079

    2015

  61. [68]

    A. Ito, H. Masumoto, T. Goto, Mater . Trans. 2007, 48, 2953-2959

    2007

  62. [69]

    Gondo, K

    T. Gondo, K. Kaneko, T. Nishiyama, K. Yamada, Z. Saghi, J. S. Barnard and P . A. Midgley, Microsc. Microanal. 2014, 20, 1001-1007

    2014

  63. [71]

    X. Tian, P . Zhao, W. Sheng, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1808066

    2019

  64. [72]

    Medford, A

    A.J. Medford, A. V ojvodic, J.S. Hummelshøj, J. V oss, F. Abild-Pedersen, F. Studt, T. Bligaard, A. Nilsson, J.K. Nørskov, J. Catal. 2015, 328, 36-42

    2015

  65. [73]

    Kuang, Z

    P . Kuang, Z. Ni, B. Zhu, Y . Lin, J. Yu, Adv. Mater . 2023, 35, 2303030

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.