Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 82 references

Exploring the role of electronic structure on photo-catalytic behavior of carbon-nitride polymorphs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Gamma-C3N4, dynamically unstable at ambient pressure, becomes a dynamically stable and better-aligned photocatalyst for water splitting above 275 GPa.

desk verdict A useful LDA+vLB versus HSE benchmark across C3N4 polymorphs, but the 275 GPa photocatalytic claim compares band edges to water redox potentials that do not exist at that pressure. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06596 v2 pith:LCPZXL23 submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sujoy Datta , Prashant Singh , Debnarayan Jana , Chhanda B Chaudhuri , Manoj K Harbola , Duane D. Johnson , Abhijit Mookerjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords carbonnitrideC3N4polymorphsphotocatalysiswatersplittingdensityfunctionaltheorybandgapworkfunctionhydrostaticpressure
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 tries to establish two linked results: a cheap density-functional correction can match expensive hybrid-functional band gaps across seven C3N4 polymorphs, and one specific polymorph, gamma-C3N4, is the best photocatalytic candidate among them. At zero pressure gamma-C3N4 has a direct hybrid-functional gap of 1.95 eV, a low electron effective mass, and stronger visible-region absorption than the graphitic phases, but its phonon spectrum contains imaginary frequencies, meaning the structure is dynamically unstable. The paper argues that hydrostatic pressure above 275 GPa removes those imaginary modes and satisfies the Born elastic stability criteria. Under that pressure the (110) surface band edges sit in a wider range relative to water's oxidation and reduction potentials, so the stabilized phase should be a better photocatalyst for water splitting. This matters because it points to an earth-abundant, metal-free material for solar hydrogen production.

What carries the argument

The device that carries the argument is the vLB-corrected local-density exchange-correlation functional, which mimics exact exchange at semi-local cost and gives the correct -1/r asymptotic behavior; it is used in full-potential NMTO calculations to obtain structural parameters and band gaps. For the photocatalytic ranking, the crucial tool is a slab work-function calculation that aligns bulk and slab electrostatic potentials through a macroscopic-average shift, yielding valence and conduction band positions relative to vacuum and then to the standard water redox potentials at pH 0 and pH 7. For the pressure claim, the deciding mechanism is density-functional perturbation theory: phonon dispersions computed at 0 GPa show imaginary frequencies, and at 275 GPa those frequencies turn real, with elastic constants satisfying the Born criteria. Together these connect electronic structure to a functional outcome—whether photogenerated electrons and holes have enough energy to split water.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the water oxidation and reduction potentials at 275 GPa; if those potentials shift by more than the roughly 0.4 eV margin in band-edge alignment, the predicted photocatalytic improvement for gamma-C3N4 under pressure fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that gamma-C3N4, the spinel phase of carbon nitride, is the standout photocatalyst among the seven polymorphs studied, and that its photocatalytic performance improves further once it is pressurized into dynamical stability. The phase has a direct band gap of 1.95 eV, an electron effective mass of 0.016 m0, higher optical conductivity in the visible range than the graphitic phases, and a (110) surface with band edges straddling the water oxidation and reduction potentials. Because the phase is dynamically unstable at ambient pressure, the paper establishes a second result: under hydrostatic pressure above 275 GPa the imaginary phonon frequencies disappear, the Born stability criteria are satisfied, and the (110) band edges, with and without water, cover a wider photocatalytic range versus the water redox levels. The paper presents this pressure-stabilized gamma-C3N4 as a new candidate for visible-light photocatalytic water splitting.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the standard water redox potentials (1.23 V and 0 V versus NHE at pH 0, and 0.81 V and -0.41 V at pH 7) remain valid at 275 GPa, so band edges computed for the compressed crystal can be compared directly with ambient aqueous electrochemistry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gamma-C3N4 becomes a specific synthesis target for high-pressure or nonhydrostatic-loading experiments, with the paper noting that uniaxial loading lowered the required pressure for silicon by a factor of 21.
  • The vLB functional offers a screening tool: band gaps and band-edge alignments for other metal-free photocatalysts can be computed at semi-local cost with hybrid-functional accuracy.
  • Among the graphitic phases, AB-stacked triazine and heptazine remain viable, but the pressure-stabilized gamma phase combines a direct gap, low electron effective mass, and wider band-edge alignment, which should improve charge separation and solar absorption.
  • If the pressure route can be reduced to experimentally accessible values, gamma-C3N4 would provide a non-toxic, earth-abundant alternative to metal-based water-splitting photocatalysts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A fully consistent electrochemical treatment would recompute water's oxidation and reduction potentials at 275 GPa rather than importing ambient values; until then, the improved photocatalytic range is a thermodynamic extrapolation.
  • The same work-function/band-edge method could be applied to strained or doped gamma-C3N4, searching for lower critical pressures or wider pH windows without extreme conditions.
  • The paper's silicon analogy suggests a concrete testable extension: nonhydrostatic or uniaxial loading might stabilize gamma-C3N4 at pressures well below 275 GPa, and phonon calculations under such stress could verify it.
  • A photocatalytic improvement in band alignment does not by itself guarantee high quantum efficiency; carrier lifetimes and surface reaction kinetics would need experimental photoelectrochemical measurement, likely on recovered metastable samples.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a first-principles study of seven C3N4 polymorphs (α, β, γ, cubic, and three graphitic forms) using a self-consistent LDA+vLB functional implemented in FP-NMTO, cross-checked against QE-HSE hybrid-functional calculations and, for γ-C3N4, a non-self-consistent G0W0 gap. It reports structural parameters, band gaps, effective masses, optical spectra, work functions, and band-edge positions relative to water redox potentials, and it investigates the dynamical stability of γ-C3N4 by phonon calculations as a function of pressure. The central claims are that γ-C3N4 is the best photocatalytic candidate among the polymorphs, that it is dynamically unstable at zero pressure, and that above 275 GPa hydrostatic pressure it becomes dynamically stable and shows improved photocatalytic behavior relative to water reduction and oxidation potentials.

Significance. The systematic comparison of seven C3N4 polymorphs with consistent functionals is a useful contribution, and the cross-validation of LDA+vLB against HSE and G0W0 for band gaps (e.g., γ-C3N4: 1.81 vs 1.95 vs 2.01 eV in Table 2) strengthens confidence in the electronic-structure part of the work. The phonon analysis of γ-C3N4 and the prediction of dynamical stabilization under pressure are also of interest. However, the headline photocatalytic-improvement claim depends on comparing band edges computed at 275 GPa with ambient aqueous redox potentials, an assumption that is neither stated nor justified. If that claim is removed or properly qualified, the remaining comparative study of structure, gaps, optical properties, and stability has value, but as written the central conclusion is not supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Fig. 12]
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 7]
  3. [§3.5, Fig. 9]
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1]
  2. [Fig. 12 caption]
  3. [§3.5]
  4. [§2 and Table 2]
  5. [Table 1]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: C3N4 gaps, phonons, and pressure-dependent band alignment are independent calculations; only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of the vLB functional.

full rationale

The central claims are self-contained against external benchmarks. The LDA+vLB potential (Eqs. 1-2, beta=0.05) is authored by the same group, but it is not fitted to C3N4; the paper validates it on graphene and bulk Si: 'We demonstrate that the LDA+vLB predicts band-structure and work-function for well-studied 2D-graphene and bulk-Si in very good agreement with experiments, and more exact hybrid functional (HSE) calculations.' The C3N4 band gaps in Table 2 are checked against external HSE, GW, mBJ, and experimental values, and gamma's phonon instability and its removal at 275 GPa (Fig. 9) are computed, not imported. Fig. 12 compares freshly computed VBM/CBM positions with fixed NHE water redox potentials; those potentials are external references, not parameters fitted from the same band edges. The limitation that gamma-C3N4 is metastable and structurally unstable at ambient conditions is acknowledged by the paper: 'Although, the stability of γ-C3N4 is an issue [81,82], the use of hydrostatic pressure in this work is an effort to provide theoretical understanding of metastable (structurally unstable) γ-C3N4.' The physical worry that 275 GPa band edges are compared with ambient liquid-water potentials is a correctness risk, not a circularity, because it does not make the output identical to an input by construction. Score 2 reflects only minor self-citations to the vLB functional and a speculative synthesis-route citation (Ref. 78), neither of which carries the central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on DFT with approximate functionals, the transferability of the LDA+vLB functional from simple metals and semiconductors to C3N4, the accuracy of slab-based absolute band edges, and one unflagged assumption that ambient water redox potentials remain valid at 275 GPa. The LDA+vLB beta is the main fixed parameter inherited from prior work; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • beta in LDA+vLB exchange correction = 0.05
    Fixed by prior van Leeuwen-Baerends work (Refs. 19 and 20), not fitted to C3N4 in this paper. All LDA+vLB band-gap predictions depend on this value.
  • Gamma interband broadening in dielectric function = unspecified small positive value
    Introduced in Eq. (3) to give excited states a finite lifetime. It affects the broadening of optical spectra but does not change the band-gap values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kohn-Sham DFT with approximate exchange-correlation functionals (LDA, PBE, PBEsol, LDA+vLB) provides a valid description of ground-state structure and electronic structure for C3N4 polymorphs.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2 and 3 as the computational foundation for all structural and electronic results.
  • domain assumption The LDA+vLB functional with the fixed beta parameter accurately reproduces HSE-level band gaps across the materials studied.
    Validated on graphene and bulk Si in Section 3; the validation set does not include C3N4, so transferability to carbon nitrides is assumed.
  • domain assumption HSE hybrid functional and non-self-consistent G0W0 are reliable reference methods for band gaps and band positions in these materials.
    Used as benchmarks in Table 2; no convergence studies or error analysis for these reference calculations are provided.
  • domain assumption Absolute band edges can be obtained from slab work-function calculations with four-layer slabs and 15 A vacuum using macroscopic averaging.
    Described in Section 2 under Work-function calculation; validation on graphene and Si shows deviations up to 0.44 eV, so the accuracy for C3N4 is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard water oxidation and reduction potentials at pH 0 and pH 7 remain valid when comparing band edges at 275 GPa.
    Used in Fig. 12 when the 275 GPa band edges of gamma-C3N4 are compared to the same NHE water redox potentials used at 0 GPa, without discussing the effect of extreme pressure on aqueous electrochemistry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the role of electronic structure on photo-catalytic behavior of carbon-nitride polymorphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCPZXL23

@misc{pith2026190806596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the role of electronic structure on photo-catalytic behavior of carbon-nitride polymorphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCPZXL23}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06596}
}
abstract

A fully self-consistent density-functional theory (DFT) with improved functionals is used to provide a comprehensive account of structural, electronic, and optical properties of C$_{3}$N$_{4}$ polymorphs. Using our recently developed van Leeuwen-Baerends (vLB) corrected local-density approximation (LDA), we implemented LDA+vLB within full-potential N$^{th}$-order muffin-tin orbital (FP-NMTO) method and show that it improves structural properties and band gaps compared to semi-local functionals (LDA/GGA). We demonstrate that the LDA+vLB predicts band-structure and work-function for well-studied 2D-graphene and bulk-Si in very good agreement with experiments, and more exact hybrid functional (HSE) calculations as implemented in the Quantum-Espresso (QE) package. The structural and electronic-structure (band gap) properties of C$_{3}$N$_{4}$ polymorphs calculated using FP-NMTO-LDA+vLB is compared with more sophisticated hybrid-functional calculations. We also perform detailed investigation of photocatalytic behavior using QE-HSE method of C$_{3}$N$_{4}$ polymorphs through work-function, band (valence and conduction) position with respect to water reduction and oxidation potential. Our results show $\gamma$-C$_{3}$N$_{4}$ as the best candidate for photocatalysis among all the C$_{3}$N$_{4}$~polymorphs but it is dynamically unstable at `zero' pressure. We show that $\gamma$-C$_{3}$N$_{4}$ can be stabilized under hydrostatic-pressure, which improves its photocatalytic behavior relative to water reduction and oxidation potentials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06596 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FP-NMTO-LDA+vLB calculated band-structure of 2D￾graphene (left) and bulk-Si (right). The predicted Dirac-point in 2D￾graphene (K-point) [45] and band gap of bulk-Si (1.25 eV) is in good agreement with experiment (1.17 eV) [29] and other theory [25]. pyramidal NC3 in spheroidal cavities, suggesting that C and N are sp3 and sp2 hybridized, respectively [12]. The α-phase has 4 formula units (f.u.) per cell with 28 atom… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Electronic dispersion and DOS of C3N4 polymorphs: (a) α; (b) β; (c) γ, and (d) C phases. All phases show indirect gaps, except for γ. C (red line) and N (blue line) projected DOS are shown. bound than those of C. The α phase has a wider band gap, and steeper VB and CB edges, compared to the others. The VB maxima and CB minima in α phase are at Γ and M point, respectively. Similar to α, we find that β (Γ − A to Γ) an… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Crystal structure of relaxed graphitic-C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Electronic band-structures, density of states and charge den [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: QSE-HSE calculated work-function of (a) 2D-graphene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Conduction and valence band positions of C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Absorption spectra, (b) optical conductivity, and (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: At 0 GPa (dynamically unstable) and 275 GPa (stable), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    X. Wang, K. Maeda, A. Thomas, K. Takanabe, G. Xin, J. M. Carlsson, K. Domen and M. Antonietti, Nature materials, 2009, 8, 76–80

    2009

  2. [2]

    X. Wang, K. Maeda, X. Chen, K. Takanabe, K. Domen, Y . Hou, X. Fu and M. Antonietti, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2009, 131, 1680–1681

    2009

  3. [3]

    K. Li, X. Xie and W.-D. Zhang, Carbon, 2016, 110, 356–366

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Hu, Y .-R

    C. Hu, Y .-R. Lin and H.-C. Yang, ChemSusChem, 2019, 12, 1794–1806

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    J. Fu, J. Yu, C. Jiang and B. Cheng, Advanced Energy Materials, 2018, 8, 1701503

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    B. Zhu, L. Zhang, B. Cheng and J. Yu, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 2018, 224, 983–999

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    X. Ma, Y . Lv, J. Xu, Y . Liu, R. Zhang and Y . Zhu,The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2012, 116, 23485–23493

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    G. Liu, C. Y . Jimmy, G. Q. M. Lu and H.-M. Cheng, Chemical Communications, 2011, 47, 6763–6783

    work page 2011

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Shayeganfar and R

    F. Shayeganfar and R. Shahsavari, Carbon, 2016, 99, 523–532

    2016

  2. [10]

    Lan, H.-T

    D.-H. Lan, H.-T. Wang, L. Chen, C.-T. Au and S.-F. Yin, Carbon, 2016, 100, 81–89. 11

    2016

  3. [11]

    X. Li, J. Yu, J. Low, Y . Fang, J. Xiao and X. Chen, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2015, 3, 2485–2534

    2015

  4. [12]

    D. M. Teter and R. J. Hemley, Science, 1996, 271, 53–55

    1996

  5. [13]

    Guo and W

    Y . Guo and W. A. Goddard, Chemical Physics Letters, 1995, 237, 72–76

    1995

  6. [14]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Review Letters, 1996, 77, 3865–3868

    1996

  7. [15]

    Perdew, Phys

    J. Perdew, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2008, 100, 136406

    2008

  8. [16]

    Mattesini, S

    M. Mattesini, S. F. Matar and J. Etourneau, Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2000, 10, 709–713

    2000

  9. [17]

    Yao and W

    H. Yao and W. Ching, Physical Review B, 1994, 50, 11231

    1994

  10. [18]

    Molina and L

    B. Molina and L. Sansores, Modern physics letters B, 1999, 13, 193–201

    1999

  11. [19]

    Singh, M

    P. Singh, M. K. Harbola, M. Hemanadhan, A. Mookerjee and D. D. Johnson, Phys. Rev. B, 2016, 93, 085204

    2016

  12. [20]

    R. V . Leeuwen and E. J. Baerends, Physical Review A, 1994, 49, 2421–2431

    1994

  13. [21]

    Jepsen, http://www.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de/andersen/, 2000

    O. Jepsen, http://www.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de/andersen/, 2000

    2000

  14. [22]

    Nohara and O

    Y . Nohara and O. Andersen, Physical Review B, 2016, 94, 085148

    2016

  15. [23]

    Tran and P

    F. Tran and P. Blaha, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2009, 102, 226401

    2009

  16. [24]

    Datta, P

    S. Datta, P. Singh, C. B. Chaudhuri, D. Jana, M. K. Har- bola, D. D. Johnson and A. Mookerjee, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2019, 31, 495502

    2019

  17. [25]

    Singh, M

    P. Singh, M. K. Harbola, B. Sanyal and A. Mookerjee, Phys. Rev. B, 2013, 87, 235110

    2013

  18. [26]

    Singh, M

    P. Singh, M. Harbola and A. Mookerjee, in Modeling, Characterization, and Production of Nanomaterials, Elsevier, 2015, pp. 407–418

    2015

  19. [27]

    Singh, M

    P. Singh, M. K. Harbola and D. D. Johnson, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2017, 29, 424001

    2017

  20. [28]

    Sadhukhan, P

    B. Sadhukhan, P. Singh, A. Nayak, S. Datta, D. D. Johnson and A. Mookerjee, Phys. Rev. B, 2017, 96, 054203

    2017

  21. [29]

    J. W. Precker and M. A. da Silva, American Journal of Physics, 2002, 70, 1150–1153

    2002

  22. [30]

    Heyd and G

    J. Heyd and G. E. Scuseria, The Journal of chemical physics, 2004, 121, 1187–1192

    2004

  23. [31]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo, A. D. Corso, S. de Gironcoli, S. Fab- ris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F....

    2009

  24. [32]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, N. Colonna, I. Carnimeo, A. D. Corso, S. de Gironcoli, P. Delugas, R. A. DiStasio, A. Ferretti, A. Floris, G. Fratesi, G. Fugallo, R. Gebauer, U. Ger...

    2017

  25. [33]

    Ziegler, P

    D. Ziegler, P. Gava, J. G ¨uttinger, F. Molitor, L. Wirtz, M. Lazzeri, A. Saitta, A. Stemmer, F. Mauri and C. Stampfer, Physical Review B, 2011, 83, 235434

    2011

  26. [34]

    Hollinger and F

    G. Hollinger and F. Himpsel, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum,Surfaces, and Films, 1983, 1, 640–645

    1983

  27. [35]

    Andersen, C

    O. Andersen, C. Arcangeli, R. Tank, T. Saha-Dasgupta, G. Krier, O. Jepsen and I. Dasgupta, MRS Online Proceedings Library Archive, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    Kraisler and L

    E. Kraisler and L. Kronik, The Journal of chemical physics, 2014, 140, 18A540

    2014

  29. [37]

    Almbladh and U

    C.-O. Almbladh and U. von Barth, Phys. Rev. B, 1985, 31, 3231–3244

    1985

  30. [38]

    D. G. Anderson, J. ACM, 1965, 12, 547–560

    1965

  31. [39]

    Wooten, Optical properties of solids, Academic press, 2013

    F. Wooten, Optical properties of solids, Academic press, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    N. Feng, F. Liu, M. Huang, A. Zheng, Q. Wang, T. Chen, G. Cao, J. Xu, J. Fan and F. Deng, Scientific reports, 2016, 6, 34765

    2016

  33. [41]

    C. Fall, N. Binggeli and A. Baldereschi, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 1999, 11, 2689

    1999

  34. [42]

    Baldereschi, Phys

    A. Baldereschi, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1988, 61, 734

    1988

  35. [43]

    N. E. Singh-Miller and N. Marzari, Physical Review B, 2009, 80, 235407

    2009

  36. [44]

    Togo and I

    A. Togo and I. Tanaka, Scr. Mater., 2015, 108, 1–5

    2015

  37. [45]

    Soldano, A

    C. Soldano, A. Mahmood and E. Dujardin, Carbon, 2010, 48, 2127 – 2150

    2010

  38. [46]

    S. Jana, A. Bandyopadhyay and D. Jana, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    M. T. Lusk and L. Carr, Carbon, 2009, 47, 2226 – 2232

    2009

  40. [48]

    S.-D. Mo, L. Ouyang, W. Ching, I. Tanaka, Y . Koyama and R. Riedel, Physical Review Letters, 1999, 83, 5046

    1999

  41. [49]

    Jiang, F

    J. Jiang, F. Kragh, D. Frost, H. Lindelov et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2001, 13, L515

    2001

  42. [50]

    J. Z. Y . Tan, N. M. Nursam, F. Xia, M.-A. Sani, W. Li, X. Wang and R. A. Caruso, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2017, 9, 4540–4547

    2017

  43. [51]

    L. Yang, P. W. May, L. Yin, J. A. Smith and K. N. Rosser, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2007, 9, 1181–1185

    2007

  44. [52]

    Qiu and L

    Y . Qiu and L. Gao, Chemical Communications, 2003, 2378– 2379

    2003

  45. [53]

    F. D. Murnaghan, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1944, 30, 244–247

    1944

  46. [54]

    Birch, Journal of Geophysical Research, 1952, 57, 227–286

    F. Birch, Journal of Geophysical Research, 1952, 57, 227–286

    1952

  47. [55]

    J. L. Corkill and M. L. Cohen, Physical Review B, 1993, 48, 17622

    1993

  48. [56]

    Xu and S.-P

    Y . Xu and S.-P. Gao,International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2012, 37, 11072–11080

    2012

  49. [57]

    Makaremi, S

    M. Makaremi, S. Grixti, K. T. Butler, G. A. Ozin and C. V . Singh, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2018, 10, 11143– 11151

    2018

  50. [58]

    A. H. Reshak, S. A. Khan and S. Auluck, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 11967–11974

    2014

  51. [59]

    V . N. Khabashesku, J. L. Zimmerman and J. L. Margrave, Chemistry of materials, 2000, 12, 3264–3270

    2000

  52. [60]

    Y . Wang, J. Zhang, X. Wang, M. Antonietti and H. Li, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2010, 49, 3356– 3359

    2010

  53. [61]

    Algara-Siller, N

    G. Algara-Siller, N. Severin, S. Y . Chong, T. Bj ¨orkman, R. G. Palgrave, A. Laybourn, M. Antonietti, Y . Z. Khimyak, A. V . Krasheninnikov, J. P. Rabe et al., Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2014, 53, 7450–7455

    2014

  54. [62]

    M. Dong, C. He and W. Zhang, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 2017, 5, 3830–3837

    2017

  55. [63]

    X. Li, Y . Dai, Y . Ma, S. Han and B. Huang,Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2014, 16, 4230–4235

    2014

  56. [64]

    J. A. Herron, J. Kim, A. A. Upadhye, G. W. Huber and C. T. Maravelias, Energy & Environmental Science, 2015, 8, 126– 157

    2015

  57. [65]

    P. Nath, S. Chowdhury, D. Sanyal and D. Jana, Carbon, 2014, 73, 275–282

    2014

  58. [66]

    Shockley and H

    W. Shockley and H. J. Queisser, Journal of Applied Physics, 1961, 32, 510–519

    1961

  59. [67]

    Meda and L

    L. Meda and L. Abbondanza, Reviews in Advanced Sciences 12 and Engineering, 2013, 2, 200–207

    2013

  60. [68]

    Jafari, E

    T. Jafari, E. Moharreri, A. Amin, R. Miao, W. Song and S. Suib, Molecules, 2016, 21, 900

    2016

  61. [69]

    J. R. Bolton, S. J. Strickler and J. S. Connolly, Nature, 1985, 316, 495

    1985

  62. [70]

    F. Yang, V . Kuznietsov, M. Lublow, C. Merschjann, A. Steigert, J. Klaer, A. Thomas and T. Schedel-Niedrig, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2013, 1, 6407–6415

    2013

  63. [71]

    Ong, L.-L

    W.-J. Ong, L.-L. Tan, Y . H. Ng, S.-T. Yong and S.-P. Chai, Chemical reviews, 2016, 116, 7159–7329

    2016

  64. [72]

    X. Yu, T. Fan, W. Chen, Z. Chen, Y . Dong, H. Fan, W. Fang and X. Yi, Carbon, 2019, 144, 649–658

    2019

  65. [73]

    Chandrasekaran, C

    S. Chandrasekaran, C. Bowen, P. Zhang, Z. Li, Q. Yuan, X. Ren and L. Deng,Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2018, 6, 11078– 11104

    2018

  66. [74]

    H. Dong, A. R. Oganov, Q. Zhu and G.-R. Qian, Scientific reports, 2015, 5, 9870

    2015

  67. [75]

    Marqu ´es, J

    M. Marqu ´es, J. Osorio, R. Ahuja, M. Fl ´orez and J. Recio, Physical Review B, 2004, 70, 104114

    2004

  68. [76]

    Andrade, B

    E. Andrade, B. Costa, C. Chaves, A. de Paula, L. Cury, A. Malachias and G. Safar, Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 2018, 40, 742–747

    2018

  69. [77]

    Mouhat and F

    F. Mouhat and F. m. c.-X. Coudert, Phys. Rev. B, 2014, 90, 224104

    2014

  70. [78]

    N. A. Zarkevich, H. Chen, V . I. Levitas and D. D. Johnson,Phys. Rev. Lett., 2018, 121, 165701

    2018

  71. [79]

    X. Dong, A. R. Oganov, A. F. Goncharov, E. Stavrou, S. Lobanov, G. Saleh, G.-R. Qian, Q. Zhu, C. Gatti, V . L. Deringer, R. Dronskowski, X.-F. Zhou, V . B. Prakapenka, Z. Konpkov, I. A. Popov, A. I. Boldyrev and H.-T. Wang,Nature Chemistry, 2017, 9, 440–445

    2017

  72. [80]

    H. Wu, X. Luo, L. Wen, H. Sun and C. Chen, Carbon, 2019, 144, 161 – 170

    2019

  73. [81]

    G. K. Pradhan, A. Kumar, S. K. Deb, U. V . Waghmare and C. Narayana, Phys. Rev. B, 2010, 82, 144112

    2010

  74. [82]

    Marqu ´es, J

    M. Marqu ´es, J. Osorio, R. Ahuja, M. Fl ´orez and J. M. Recio, Phys. Rev. B, 2004, 70, 104114. 13

    2004

Pith tools

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