Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 31 references

Reverse chemistry of iron in the deep Earth

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under deep-Earth pressure, iron switches from electron donor to electron acceptor, oxidizing p-block elements and redrawing core chemistry.

desk verdict Solid first-principles survey of Fe–p-block chemistry under pressure; the Bader-charge-based 'reverse chemistry' framing needs a scheme-independent check before it should be treated as established. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06569 v1 pith:CEICCNPC submitted 2019-08-19 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xiaoli Wang , Xiaolei Feng , Jianfu Li , Dalar Khodagholian , Jiani Lin , Matthew G. Jackson , Frank J. Spera , Simon A. T. Redfern
show 1 more author
Maosheng Miao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords chargetransferreversaldeepEarthchemistryironcompoundshighpressurep-blockelementscoresequestrationfirst-principlesstructuresearchBader
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that at the multi-hundred-gigapascal pressures of Earth's deep interior, iron reverses its chemical polarity: instead of handing electrons to more electronegative elements, it pulls electrons from p-block elements and becomes the oxidant. Working across the p-block of the periodic table with first-principles crystal-structure searches, the authors show that this charge-transfer reversal strengthens Fe-X bonding, changes stoichiometries and crystal structures, and turns elements traditionally considered unreactive toward iron (Te, I, Bi, Pb) into strongly bound core-seeking partners. The same mechanism gives a single explanation for previously puzzling compounds such as Fe3Xe and FeO2, and it singles out silicon as an anomaly whose bonding with iron grows strong enough to matter for core composition. If right, the study rewrites the chemical rules used to read Earth's formation from the mantle's element budget.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pressure-driven charge transfer reversal (CTR) between Fe 3d and X np orbitals, quantified with Bader charge partitioning on top of density functional theory enthalpies. It is the mechanism that converts each formation-enthalpy calculation into a statement about chemical character: when the Bader charge on Fe crosses zero, the compound flips from 'iron salt' to 'p-block ferride'. The machinery also includes global structure searches for FemXn with m,n = 1-3 at 150 and 300 GPa, which supply the stable structures and convex hulls from which formation enthalpies and charge values are read.

What would settle it

A direct high-pressure experiment on a predicted CTR compound such as FeI or Fe3I, using Mössbauer isomer shift or X-ray emission spectroscopy to track iron's oxidation state from 0 to 300 GPa, would settle the claim: if iron's spectral signature does not move toward a reduced or negative-charge state across the predicted crossover, the reversal is an artifact of the charge partitioning. A purely computational falsifier would be an alternative electron-density partitioning method that fails to reproduce the sign flip for the same electron densities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pressure drives a systematic charge transfer reversal (CTR) in iron compounds: Bader charge analysis of the calculated electron density shows iron's charge moving from positive (electron donor) to negative (electron acceptor) as pressure rises, with thresholds at 100 GPa for Fe-I, 30 GPa for Fe-Te, 110 GPa for Fe-P, and 150 GPa for Fe-Ge. On the paper's account, the mechanism is orbital: Fe 3d states sit at lower energy and are compressed less than the np states of the p-block partner, so electrons flow into Fe as the partner's bands rise. The consequence is that iron oxidizes p-block elements, iron-rich stoichiometries such as Fe2I and Fe3I become stable, lone pairs vanish, coordination numbers climb, and many FeX compounds adopt the CsCl structure. The paper also reports that the binding strength of p-block elements with iron at 150 and 300 GPa correlates inversely with their depletion in the silicate Earth, which argues against core sequestration as the cause of that depletion, and that Fe-Si bonding strengthens anomalously and surpasses Fe-O near 250 GPa.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 'reverse chemistry' framing rests on the Bader charge sign flip, the claim that the electron density around iron really is negative at high pressure; if that partitioning is wrong, the reversal could be an artifact, even though the computed compound stabilities would still stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavy p-block elements (Te, I, Pb, Bi, Sb, Se) that barely bind iron at ambient pressure become strongly siderophile at core pressures, with formation enthalpies near or below -1 eV/atom.
  • Because observed element depletions correlate inversely with Fe binding strength, core sequestration is unlikely to be the main cause of p-block depletion in the silicate Earth; volatility-controlled accretion models gain support.
  • Silicon's anomalously strong bonding with iron at high pressure suggests Si could be a major light element in Earth's core, consistent with seismology and lower core density.
  • The same charge-transfer reversal unifies prior findings: Fe3Xe and FeO2 are not isolated oddities but manifestations of iron's pressure-driven role reversal.
  • Stoichiometries of Fe-X compounds shift iron-rich under pressure, and structures become densely packed ionic CsCl-type as charge transfers into Fe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same orbital-compression argument should apply to other transition metals with compact d states, so Ni, Co, or Cr may show analogous charge-transfer reversal in planetary cores; a systematic survey across the 3d series would test this.
  • The inverse depletion-binding correlation could be sharpened into a predictive geochemical test: if a p-block element is found with high Fe affinity but low volatility, its mantle depletion should be small, a combination that would distinguish core sequestration from volatility loss.
  • Pressure-dependent Bader sign flips could be checked experimentally by measuring Fe's isomer shift or X-ray emission energy in laser-heated diamond-anvil-cell samples across the predicted transition pressures, for example Fe-I near 100 GPa.
  • The Si anomaly suggests that the deep mantle may host Si- and Al-rich domains if slabs carry FeSi into the lower mantle, which could connect to the observed super-chondritic Mg/Si ratios without requiring a hidden reservoir.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic first-principles study of iron compounds with p-block elements (B through I) at 0, 150, and 300 GPa, combining CALYPSO structure searches with DFT enthalpies to construct convex hulls. The central claim is a pressure-induced 'reverse chemistry' of iron: from Bader charge analysis the authors report that Fe changes from an electron donor (positive charge) to an electron acceptor (negative charge) for many p-block partners, with charge-transfer reversal (CTR) pressures that vary by element. They further argue that the pressure-enhanced binding to Fe is not the cause of p-block element depletion in the silicate Earth, identify Si as an anomalous case with exceptionally strong Fe binding and very negative Fe charge, and suggest that the low density of FeSi could explain the core density deficit. The paper also links the charge redistribution to structural evolution, including the loss of lone-pair motifs and the appearance of CsCl-type ionic phases.

Significance. If the charge-transfer reversal is robust, the paper would provide a unifying chemical principle for previously puzzling high-pressure iron compounds (e.g., Fe3Xe, FeO2) and a broadly applicable periodic trend with implications for core composition, element partitioning, and planetary accretion models. The systematic coverage of p-block elements, consistent computational setup, convergence checks to <1 meV/atom, and dynamic stability verification for at least the Fe-I family are notable strengths that make the dataset a useful resource. However, the headline 'reverse chemistry' interpretation is not yet firmly established because it relies entirely on Bader charge partitioning, which is a non-unique scheme; the geochemical correlation also contains an internally inconsistent description of the sign of the relationship. These issues are substantial but addressable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Fig. 2d–f] The central claim that iron changes from a reductant to an oxidant is based on the sign of the Bader charge on Fe, e.g., the reported change for Fe-I from +0.75e at 0 GPa to -0.39e at 300 GPa. Bader charges are a non-unique partition of the electron density and are not directly observable; the manuscript provides no benchmark against an alternative charge-decomposition scheme (such as Hirshfeld, iterative Hirshfeld, DDEC, or projected COOP) or against an experimental observable. Because the 'reverse chemistry' narrative, the CTR pressures, and the statement that 'iron iodide becomes iodine ferride' all depend on this single analysis, the authors should demonstrate that the sign reversal is robust to the partitioning scheme, or at minimum discuss the uncertainty and its consequences. If another scheme does not reproduce the sign flip, the central claim would need to be reframed as a pressure-induced charge redistribution rather than oxidation of p-block elements.
  2. [§3, Figs. 2a–c] The text states that p-block abundances are 'inversely correlated' with binding strength to Fe, and then glosses this as 'the stronger they bind with Fe the less they are depleted in the silicate Earth.' An inverse correlation between abundance and binding strength implies that stronger binding gives lower abundance (greater depletion), while the second phrase describes a positive correlation (stronger binding gives higher abundance, i.e., less depletion). These statements have opposite signs, and the correlation direction is central to the conclusion that core sequestration is not the cause of the depletions. The manuscript should correct the wording and unambiguously state whether the vertical axis of Fig. 2a–c is abundance (positive correlation expected) or depletion (negative correlation expected).
  3. [§4 Conclusions] The extrapolation from crystalline compounds to the liquid outer core is asserted with the statement that 'the chemical driving force is irrelevant to the state of the matter.' This is not self-evident; free energies include vibrational, configurational, and pressure–volume contributions that can differ qualitatively between solid and liquid. Since the 'deep Earth' significance of the paper rests substantially on applying the trend to the core, the authors should either provide a concrete argument or comparative evidence that the computed enthalpies carry over to the liquid state, or explicitly limit the claim to the solid inner core. The current phrasing overstates the generality of the crystalline results.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2 Methods, Fig. S6] Phonon spectra (dynamic stability) are reported only for Fe-I compounds; the other predicted structures are presented without such verification. Please clarify whether the dynamic stability of all structures shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. S5 was checked, and if not, acknowledge this limitation for the remaining compounds.
  2. [§3, CTR pressure sentence] The sentence 'For heavy p-block elements, like Ge, P, As, Te and I, the charge on Fe changes from positive to negative at 0, 150, 110, 30, and 100 GPa, respectively' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether 'at 0 GPa' and 'at 150 GPa' refer to the pressure where the sign flips or the pressure at which the charge is already negative. Please reword to remove the ambiguity.
  3. [§3, Si anomaly] The text referencing 'Extended Data Fig. 7' for the density difference of FeSi appears to refer to Fig. S7 in the Supplementary Information; please correct the cross-reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Independent first-principles study with no circular reduction.

full rationale

I traced the paper's derivation chain: CALYPSO structure searches, DFT relaxed enthalpies, convex-hull stability, Bader charge and ELF analysis, then the correlation of binding strength with external CI-chondrite-normalized abundances. No parameter is fitted to the central claim of pressure-induced charge-transfer reversal; the formation enthalpies and Bader charges are computed from first-principles DFT and structure search, and the depletion data are external literature values. The CTR is read directly off the computed Bader charges, so the redox vocabulary ('reductant' to 'oxidant') is an interpretive label applied to the DFT electron density rather than a prediction obtained by fitting an input. The orbital-energy explanation in the SI (Figs. S2–S4) is a posteriori rationalization, not itself an input to the calculations. The only self-citations (refs. 11 and 14 by Miao) appear in a broad methodological citation cluster and do not supply a load-bearing premise; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work. I therefore find no step where an output equals an input by construction. The scheme dependence of Bader charges is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity, and the paper's explicit scope limitation in the Conclusions reinforces that it is not claiming a comprehensive core model.

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

The paper's central claims rest on standard DFT approximations and on Bader charge interpretation, not on fitted parameters. There are no invented particles or forces. The main assumptions are the completeness of the structure search, the validity of Bader charges as a redox measure, and the transfer of solid-state trends to the liquid core.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GGA-PBE DFT provides sufficiently accurate enthalpies and Bader charges at 150 to 400 GPa.
    All formation enthalpies and charge analysis rely on this approximation; no hybrid functionals or quantum Monte Carlo validation are provided.
  • domain assumption CALYPSO searches with the chosen stoichiometric window and cell sizes find the global minimum structures.
    The convex hulls and most-stable compounds are only as complete as the search; only Fe-I phonons are verified for dynamic stability.
  • domain assumption Bader charge sign is a faithful proxy for electron transfer and oxidation state.
    The reverse-chemistry conclusion is read directly from the Bader charge sign; no alternative partitioning or experimental probe is offered.
  • domain assumption Literature depletion and condensation temperature data are accurate.
    The inverse correlation in Fig. 2 uses CI-chondrite-normalized abundances and 50% condensation temperatures from cited sources.
  • ad hoc to paper The chemical driving force is independent of the state of matter, allowing crystalline results to extend to the liquid outer core.
    Stated in the Conclusions to justify applying solid-compound trends to the liquid outer core, without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reverse chemistry of iron in the deep Earth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CEICCNPC

@misc{pith2026190806569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reverse chemistry of iron in the deep Earth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CEICCNPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06569}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we demonstrate a remarkable change of chemical trend of Iron under high pressure that is of great importance for understanding the distribution of elements in the Earth's mantle and core. Using first principles crystal structure search method, we conduct a systematic study of the propensity of p block elements to chemically bind with iron under high pressures ranging from ambient conditions to that of Earth's core. We show that under increasing pressure, iron tends to reverse its chemical nature, changing from an electron donor (reductant) to an electron acceptor, and oxidizes p-block elements in many compounds. Such reverse chemistry has a significant impact on the stoichiometries, bond types and strengths, structures and properties of iron compounds under deep planetary conditions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. F. McDonough and S.-S. Sun, Chem. Geol. 120, 223 (1995)

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    D. L. Anderson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 13966 (2002)

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    B. J. Wood, M. J. Walter, and J. Wade, Nature 441, 825 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Anders and N

    E. Anders and N. Grevesse, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53, 197 (1989)

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Wang and H

    Z. Wang and H. Becker, Nature 499, 328 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Lodders and B

    K. Lodders and B. Fegley, The Planetary Scientist’s Companion (Oxford University Press on Demand, 1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    L. Zhu, H. Liu, C. J. Pickard, G. Zou, and Y. Ma, Nat. Chem. 6, 644 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Stavrou, Y

    E. Stavrou, Y. Yao, A. F. Goncharov, S. S. Lobanov, J. M. Zaug, H. Liu, E. Greenberg, and V. B. Prakapenka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 96001 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    X. Du, Z. Wang, H. Wang, T. Iitaka, Y. Pan, H. Wang, and J. S. Tse, ACS Earth Sp. Chem. 2, 711 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Q. Hu, D. Y. Kim, W. Yang, L. Yang, Y. Meng, L. Zhang, and H.-K. Mao, Nature 534, 241 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Botana and M.-S

    J. Botana and M.-S. Miao, Nat. Commun. 5, 4861 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    J. Feng, R. G. Hennig, N. W. Ashcroft, and R. Hoffmann, Nature 451, 445 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Zhang, A

    W. Zhang, A. R. Oganov, A. F. Goncharov, Q. Zhu, S. E. Boulfelfel, A. O. Lyakhov, E. Stavrou, M. Somayazulu, V. B. Prakapenka, and Z. Konô pková , Science (80-. ). 342, 1502 LP (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    M. S. Miao, Nat. Chem. 5, 846 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    A. R. Oganov and S. Ono, Nature 430, 445 (2004). 12

    2004

  8. [16]

    V. A. Vernikovsky and N. V Sobolev, Russ. Geol. Geophys. 57, 3 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Lodders, Astrophys

    K. Lodders, Astrophys. J. 591, 1220 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    A. F. Goncharov, V. V. Struzhkin, J. A. Montoya, S. Kharlamova, R. Kundargi, J. Siebert, J. Badro, D. Antonangeli, F. J. Ryerson, and W. Mao, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 180, 148 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Badro, A

    J. Badro, A. S. Cô té , and J. P. Brodholt, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 7542 (2014)

    2014

  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, APL Mater. 1, 011002 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Y. Wang, J. Lv, L. Zhu, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. B 82, 094116 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Y. Wang, J. Lv, L. Zhu, and Y. Ma, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 2063 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    P. E. P. Blö chl, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  17. [25]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmü ller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976)

    1976

  20. [28]

    Henkelman, A

    G. Henkelman, A. Arnaldsson, and H. Jó nsson, Comput. Mater. Sci. 36, 354 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    M. J. Walter, E. Nakamura, R. G. Trø nnes, and D. J. Frost, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 68, 4267 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    D. C. Rubie, D. J. Frost, U. Mann, Y. Asahara, F. Nimmo, K. Tsuno, P. Kegler, A. Holzheid, and H. Palme, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 301, 31 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    dosanalyze.pl

    C. R. M. Jackson, L. B. Ziegler, H. Zhang, M. G. Jackson, and D. R. Stegman, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 392, 154 (2014). 13 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Fig. S1. Reproduction of a plot of the abundance of elements in the Silicate Earth (normalized to Mg and CI chondrites) versus th...

    2014

Pith tools

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