Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Importance of Dispersion and Relativistic Effects for ORR Overpotential Calculation on Pt(111) surface

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Adding dispersion and spin-orbit corrections to DFT raises the predicted oxygen reduction limiting potential of Pt(111) by up to 0.19 V (25%), to 0.76 V.

desk verdict Useful benchmark: dispersion and SOC shift ORR limiting potential on Pt(111) by up to ~0.2 V, but the 25% headline rests on a fragile 0.02 eV RDS flip and unshown ZPE corrections. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08697 v1 pith:TNYS7U7N submitted 2019-08-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Akhil S. Nair , Biswarup Pathak This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords oxygenreductionreactiondispersioncorrectionsspin-orbitcouplingtheoreticallimitingpotentialPt(111)surfacedensityfunctionaltheoryoverpotentialfreeenergy
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 sets out to show that two physical effects normally left out of standard periodic density functional theory—long-range dispersion forces and spin-orbit coupling—materially change the predicted activity of the Pt(111) surface for the oxygen reduction reaction. On the authors' analysis, adding them shifts the theoretical limiting potential upward by roughly 0.1–0.2 V, up to a 25% improvement, with the best combination reaching 0.76 V, close to the value obtained from a more expensive explicit-water calculation. The limiting potential is the common computational descriptor used to rank fuel-cell catalysts, so the claim implies that conventional GGA calculations carry a systematic pessimistic bias for platinum. If the result holds, catalyst screening studies that ignore these effects are likely undervaluing platinum-based materials.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the computational hydrogen electrode free-energy scheme and the theoretical limiting potential, defined as the minimum over the four proton-electron transfer steps of the oxygen reduction reaction; the closer this minimum is to 1.23 V, the better the catalyst. The paper compares how that minimum changes when the adsorption free energies are recomputed with different density functionals, with empirical dispersion corrections (pairwise D2 and two- plus three-body D3), with nonlocal van der Waals functionals, and with spin-orbit coupling included in the projector augmented-wave Hamiltonian. The zero-point energy and entropy terms are held fixed at literature values for all methods, and the differences across methods in the elementary-step free energies are what produce the reported shifts in limiting potential.

What would settle it

Recompute the RPBE-D2 free-energy diagram with method-specific zero-point energies and entropies instead of the fixed 0.05, 0.35, and 0.40 eV corrections for O*, OH*, and OOH*. If the OH* formation step shifts by more than about 0.05 eV relative to the OH* removal step, the rate-determining step flips and the claimed 0.76 V limiting potential and the 25% improvement no longer hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the theoretical limiting potential of the oxygen reduction reaction on Pt(111) is systematically underestimated when periodic density functional theory omits dispersion and spin-orbit coupling. Across eight exchange-correlation settings, including DFT-D2 and DFT-D3 corrections and two nonlocal van der Waals functionals, the adsorption free energies shift enough to raise the limiting potential by 0.12 eV at the PBE level and 0.19 eV at the RPBE level—improvements of 18% and 25% relative to the corrected totals of 0.66 V and 0.76 V. Spin-orbit coupling alone raises the OH* formation step by 0.04–0.06 eV for every method tested, and in the RPBE-D2 case this changes the rate-determining step, producing the highest limiting potential of 0.76 V. The authors read this as evidence that plain GGA calculations undervalue platinum as an ORR catalyst and that the two effects are comparable in size to the solvent correction normally included in such models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a single set of fixed zero-point energy and entropy corrections, taken from the literature, is accurate for every functional and for calculations both with and without spin-orbit coupling; the paper states that vibrational checks showed negligible differences but does not report the numbers, and the SOC-induced shifts it relies on are only 0.04–0.06 eV, the same size as a plausible method-dependent correction error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Plain PBE and RPBE calculations without dispersion or spin-orbit coupling give limiting potentials of 0.54 V and 0.57 V; the corrected calculations give 0.66 V and 0.76 V, so published activity comparisons built on plain GGA values include an offset of roughly 0.1–0.2 V.
  • Dispersion plus spin-orbit effects are comparable in size to the 0.30 eV solvent correction, meaning a calculation that includes the former but not the latter is unbalanced.
  • Spin-orbit coupling consistently raises the free energy of OH* formation by 0.04–0.06 eV; when OH* formation and OH* removal are close in energy, including SOC can change which step is rate-determining.
  • At the best level of theory, the gas-phase slab model reproduces the 0.78 V limiting potential previously obtained with explicit water, suggesting the two corrections bring the cheaper model into line with the more expensive one.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the tested methods preserve the well-known scaling relations among O*, OH*, and OOH*, the corrections likely shift absolute limiting potentials along the standard activity volcano rather than changing its shape; intermetallic activity rankings may survive while absolute overpotentials improve.
  • The fixed-correction assumption is the main internal risk. A method-specific vibrational analysis could either confirm the 0.04–0.06 eV SOC shifts or show they fall within zero-point uncertainty.
  • For low-coordinated sites on nanoparticles and stepped surfaces, where dispersion contributions and relativistic rehybridization are stronger than on a flat close-packed surface, the accumulated method error could be larger than 0.2 V; repeating this comparison on small clusters would be a direct test.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents DFT calculations of the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) on a periodic Pt(111) slab using PBE and RPBE functionals with and without D2/D3 dispersion corrections and with and without spin–orbit coupling (SOC). Adsorption free energies of O*, OH*, and OOH* are converted into elementary-step free energies via the computational hydrogen electrode, and theoretical limiting potentials are extracted. The authors report that dispersion corrections substantially increase the limiting potential relative to plain PBE/RPBE and that including SOC yields a further small improvement; the best value, 0.76 V for RPBE+D2 with SOC, is presented as a 25% improvement over plain RPBE.

Significance. The study is useful as a systematic comparison of dispersion and relativistic effects in a standard electrocatalysis benchmark. The CHE formalism is standard and correctly applied, and the computational setup (3x3 supercell, four layers, 5x5x1 k-points, 470 eV cutoff) is reasonable. The main value would be a quantitative demonstration of how much these corrections matter for ORR activity predictions on platinum. However, the quantitative claims rest on small energy differences and on an unsupported assumption that zero-point energy and entropy corrections are identical across all methods and with/without SOC, so the significance is currently conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1, Eqs. (17)–(20)] The constant ZPE/entropy corrections of 0.05, 0.35, and 0.40 eV for O*, OH*, and OOH* are taken from Ref. 39 and applied uniformly to all functionals and to both SOC and non-SOC calculations. The text states that vibrational frequency calculations showed 'negligible difference in zero point energy,' but no frequencies, no numerical values, and no reference are provided. The SOC-induced changes in the elementary-step free energies are only 0.02–0.06 eV (Table 1), and for RPBE+D2 the rate-determining step flips because of a 0.02 eV crossing (ΔG15/ΔG16: 0.74/0.78 non-SOC vs 0.78/0.76 SOC). A method- or SOC-dependent ZPE variation of about 0.03 eV in the OH* or O* correction would be enough to change the RDS and the reported 0.76 V limiting potential, directly affecting the headline 25% improvement. Please provide the vibrational data or otherwise justify the transferability of these corrections.
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 4] The headline '25% improvement' compares plain RPBE (UL=0.57 V) with RPBE+D2+SOC (UL=0.76 V), i.e., a change that combines a functional change (dispersion) with a relativistic correction. The incremental SOC contribution alone is only 0.02 V for RPBE+D2 and 0.04–0.06 V for the other methods, which is of the same order as the assumed ZPE uncertainty identified above. The conclusion that the results demonstrate the 'importance of ... relativistic effects' is therefore stronger than the data support. Please decompose the individual contributions of dispersion and SOC to UL and discuss the small absolute size of the SOC effect in the context of the estimated uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The scaling relation is written as ΔG_OH = ΔG_OOH + 3.2 ± 0.2 eV; the correct relation is ΔG_OOH = ΔG_OH + 3.2 ± 0.2 eV.
  2. [References] The in-text citations for Christensen et al. and Briquet et al. point to Refs. 42 and 43, which are both Koper references; the correct entries appear to be Refs. 45 and 46.
  3. [Throughout] Typographical errors include 'Monkhrost Pack' (Monkhorst–Pack), 'Brillioun zone' (Brillouin zone), 'Pacakge' in the VASP description, 'hamiitonian', and 'zeroth order regular approximatin'.
  4. [Section 3.1] The statement that vibrational calculations show negligible ZPE differences needs a supporting reference or a note that the data are in the SI; the SI is currently described as containing only binding-energy tables and free-energy diagrams.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ORR limiting potentials are direct DFT/CHE outputs with no fit to target values.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Binding energies are computed directly from DFT total energies via Eqs. 10-12; free energies of the elementary steps are obtained from the standard computational hydrogen electrode expressions in Eqs. 17-20 using literature ZPE/entropy corrections and a fixed solvent correction; the theoretical limiting potential is then read off as the minimum of these computed step free energies. No parameter in the paper is fitted to the reported U_L values, and the D2/D3, vdW-DF, and SOC corrections are independent physical/methodological inputs rather than quantities derived from the target result. The comparison with Nørskov's 0.78 V is an external benchmark used after the calculation, not an input that forces the result. The only notable weakness is the stated-but-unshown assumption that ZPE corrections are method- and SOC-independent, which affects robustness of the 0.02-0.06 eV RDS comparisons; however, an unsupported assumption is a correctness risk, not circularity, because the reported limiting potentials are not identities or fitted predictions. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or renamed known result is present. Accordingly, the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not introduce new theory or entities. It rests on standard DFT functionals, empirical dispersion corrections, and fixed thermodynamic corrections from prior literature. The key unverified inputs are the assumed universal ZPE/entropy corrections and the implicit solvent correction, both of which could shift the small energy differences that determine the limiting potential.

free parameters (5)
  • O* zero-point/entropy correction = 0.05 eV
    Taken from ref 39 and applied uniformly to all DFT methods and SOC settings, based on an unquantified claim of negligible frequency differences. This constant shifts every O* free energy and thus affects all step free energies.
  • OH* zero-point/entropy correction = 0.35 eV
    Same as above.
  • OOH* zero-point/entropy correction = 0.40 eV
    Same as above.
  • solvent correction = 0.30 eV
    Fixed enthalpy difference between liquid and gaseous water used in free energy equations (Eq. 17-20); implicit solvent model.
  • Pt(111) lattice constant = 2.77 Å (experimental)
    Fixed to the experimental value; affects strain and adsorption energies but is not validated by relaxation in this work.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption PBE and RPBE exchange-correlation functionals give reliable relative adsorption energies for ORR intermediates
    The entire comparison is built on GGA-level DFT. No benchmark against higher-level theory is provided.
  • domain assumption Computational hydrogen electrode (CHE) model correctly relates free energies to applied potential
    Equations 13-16 and 17-20 adopt the Nørskov CHE formalism; this is standard but assumes proton-electron transfer equilibria and neglects kinetic barriers.
  • domain assumption The fixed experimental lattice constant and 4-layer slab with frozen bottom layers are sufficient for surface energetics
    Convergence with respect to layers and k-points is asserted but not shown; a thicker or fully relaxed slab could change adsorption energies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Importance of Dispersion and Relativistic Effects for ORR Overpotential Calculation on Pt(111) surface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNYS7U7N

@misc{pith2026190808697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Importance of Dispersion and Relativistic Effects for ORR Overpotential Calculation on Pt(111) surface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNYS7U7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08697}
}
read the original abstract

Density functional theory (DFT) has been used as an important tool for studying activity of oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) catalysts. The dispersion effects, which are not encountered in many of the previous DFT studies for periodic Pt(111), are scrutinized for their role in predicting ORR activity on Pt (111) surface. Spin orbit coupling is employed to account for relativistic effects expected for heavy metal platinum, which has not been addressed in any of the previous studies on Pt(111). Adsorption behavior of intermediates and free energy changes of elementary reactions of ORR are analyzed with commonly used dispersion methods. A cumulative enhancement of ORR energetics and a maximum of 25% improvement in theoretical limiting potential are observed. The study illustrates the importance of consideration of these effects for better prediction of electrocatalytic activity for platinum based catalysts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction Electrocatalysis has been appraised as an area of tremendous importance owing to its supreme role in empowering the development of renewable energy related materials to meet the proliferating energy demand .1,2 Very recent decades have witnessed profound advancement in this area with the introduction of fuel cells, batteries, hydrogen storage...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Generalized gradient approximation s of Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof (GGA -PBE)33 and revised PBE(GGA- RPBE)34 are used for describing the exchange correlation interactions

    Computational Methodology The DFT calculations are carried out using VASP (Vienna Ab Initio Software Pacakge) 31 with projector augmented wave (PAW) method 32 under periodic boundary conditions. Generalized gradient approximation s of Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof (GGA -PBE)33 and revised PBE(GGA- RPBE)34 are used for describing the exchange correlation interact...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Results and Discussions 3.1 Dispersion Effects The adsorption configurations of O2*, O*, OH* and OOH* (* indicates adsorbed species) on the periodic Pt (111) surface are shown in Fig. 1. All the possible sites of occupancy for these species are investigated and the most stable con figurations are considered. The favorable sites of adsorption are found to ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Moreover, the consideration of relativistic effects is also found to improve in the energetics of the reaction significantly

    Conclusion It is evident from this study that the inclusion of dispersion correction is critical in determining the catalytic activity of periodic Pt (111) surface for ORR . Moreover, the consideration of relativistic effects is also found to improve in the energetics of the reaction significantly. The improvement observed in the ORR activity illustrates ...

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    V. R. Stamenkovic, D. Strmcnik, P. P. Lopes and N. M. Markovic, Energy and fuels from electrochemical interfaces, Nat. Mater., 2017, 16, 57–69

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    N. M. Markovic, Electrocatalysi s: Interfacing electrochemistry, Nat. Mater., 2013, 12, 101–102

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Z. W. Seh, J. Kibsgaard, C. F. Dickens, I. Chorkendorff, J. K. Nørskov and T. F. Jaramillo, Combining theory and experiment in electrocatalysis: Insights into materials design. Science., 2017, 355, 146

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    M. K. Debe, Electrocatalyst approaches and challenges for automotive fuel cells. Nature. 2012, 486, 43–51

    work page 2012

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Shao, S. Park, J. Xiao, J. G. Zhang, Y. Wang and J. Liu, Electrocatalysts for Nonaqueous Lithium−Air Batteries: Status, Challenges, and Perspective . ACS Catal. , 2012, 2, 844−857

    2012

  2. [10]

    M. Shao, Q. Chang, J. P. Dodelet and R. Chenitz, Recent Advances in Electrocatalyst s for Oxygen Reduction Reaction, Chem. Rev., 2016, 116, 3594-3657

    2016

  3. [11]

    Y. Nie, L. Li and Z. Wei, Recent advancements in Pt and Pt -free catalyst s for oxygen reduction reaction, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2015, 44, 2168-2201

    2015

  4. [12]

    S. Sui, X. Wang, X. Zhou, Y. Su, S. Riffatc and C. Liu, A comprehensive review of Pt electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction: Nanostructure, activity, mechanism and carbon support in PEM fuel cells., J. Mater. Chem. A., 2017, 5, 1808-1825

    2017

  5. [13]

    Kongkanand and M

    A. Kongkanand and M. F. Mathias, The Priority and Challenge of High-Power Performance of Low Platinum Proton -Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells. , J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2016, 7, 1127−1137. 18

    2016

  6. [14]

    J. K. Nørskov, J. Rossmeisl, A. Logadottir and L. Lindqvist, Origin of the Overpotential for Oxygen Reduction at a Fuel -Cell Cathode. , J. Phys. Chem. B ., 2004, 108, 17886 - 17892

    2004

  7. [15]

    V. R. Stamenkovic, B. Fowler, B. S. Mun, G.Wang, P. N. Ross, C. A. Lucas and N. M. Markovic, Improved Oxygen Reduction Activity on Pt 3Ni(111) via Increased Surface Site Availability., Science., 2007, 315, 493-496

    2007

  8. [16]

    Kattel and G

    S. Kattel and G. Wang, Beneficial compressive strain for oxygen reduction reaction on Pt (111) surface. J. Chem. Phys., 2014, 141, 124713-124718

    2014

  9. [17]

    Zhang, R

    L. Zhang, R. Iyyamperumal, D. F. Yancey, R. M. Crooks and G. Henkelman, Design of Pt-Shell Nanoparticles with Alloy Cores for the Oxygen Reduction Reaction. ACS Nano, 2013, 7, 9168−9172

    2013

  10. [18]

    C. Wang, D. Li, M. Chi, J. Pearson, R. B. Rankin, J. Greeley, Z. Duan G. Wang, D. van der Vliet, K. L. More, N. M. Markovic and V. R. Stamenkovic, Rational Development of Ternary Alloy Electrocatalysts, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2012, 3, 1668-1673

    2012

  11. [19]

    J. Shin, J. H. Choi, P. R. Cha, S. K. Kim, I. Kim, S. C. Lee and Jeong, D. S. Catalytic activity for oxygen reduction reaction on platinum -based core–shell nanoparticles: all- electron density functional theory, Nanoscale., 2015, 7, 15830−15839

    2015

  12. [20]

    J. A. Keith, G. Jerkiewicz, T. Jacob, Theoretical Investigations of the Oxyge n Reduction Reaction on Pt(111), ChemPhysChem., 2010, 11, 2779-2794

    2010

  13. [21]

    Tripkovi´ca, E

    V. Tripkovi´ca, E. Skúlasona, S. Siahrostamia, J. K. Nørskov and J. Rossmeisl, The oxygen reducti on reaction mechanism on Pt(11 1) from density functional theory calculations, Electrochimica Acta., 2010, 55, 7975-7981. 19

    2010

  14. [22]

    Klimeš and A

    J. Klimeš and A. Michaelidesa, Perspective: Advances and challenges in treating van der Waals dispersion forces in density functional theory, J. Chem. Phys., 2012, 137, 120901

    2012

  15. [23]

    Grimme, Semiempirical GGA -Type Density Functional Constructedwith a Long - Range Dispersion Correction, J

    S. Grimme, Semiempirical GGA -Type Density Functional Constructedwith a Long - Range Dispersion Correction, J. Comput. Chem., 2006, 27, 1787–1799

    2006

  16. [24]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, E. Ehrlich, H. Krieg, A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT -D) for the 94 elements H-Pu, J. Chem. Phys., 2010, 132, 154104

    2010

  17. [25]

    M. Dion, H. Rydberg, E. Schröder, D. C. Langreth and B. L. Lundqvist, Van der Waals Density Functional for General Geometries, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2004, 92, 246401

    2004

  18. [26]

    Thonhauser, V

    T. Thonhauser, V. R. Cooper, S. Li, A. Puzder, P. Hyldgaard and D. C. Langreth, Van der Waals density functional: Self -consistent potential and the nature of the van der Waals bond, Phys. Rev. B., 2007, 76, 125112

    2007

  19. [27]

    S. K. Pitzer, Relativistic effects on chemical properties , Acc. Chem. Res, 1979, 12, 271– 276

    1979

  20. [28]

    Pellow and M

    R. Pellow and M. V. Ffh, The external heavy atom effect: Theory of spin -orbit coupling of alkali and noble metals in rare gas matrices, J. Chem. Phys., 1989, 90, 5612-5621

    1989

  21. [29]

    Ahuja, A

    R. Ahuja, A. Blomqvist, P. Larsson, P. Pyykkö and P. Z. Ejgierd, Relativity and the Lead-Acid Battery. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2011. 106, 018301

    2011

  22. [30]

    E. J. Jones, S. Piccinin and C. Stampfl, Relativity and the nobility of gold ., Materials Chemistry and Physics., 2013, 141, 14-17

    2013

  23. [31]

    Vieru, N

    V. Vieru, N. Iwahara, L. Ungur and L. F. Chibotaru, Giant exchange interaction in mixed lanthanides, Sci. Rep, 2015, 6, 24046. 20

    2015

  24. [32]

    P. H. T. Philipsen, E. van Lenthe, J. G. Snijders and E. J Baerends, Relativistic calculations on th e adsorption of CO on the (111) surfaces of Ni, Pd, and Pt within the zeroth-order regular approximation, Phys. Rev. B., 1997, 50 , 13556

    1997

  25. [33]

    M. N. Huda, M. K. Niranjan, B. R. Sahu and L. Kleinman, Effect of spin-orbit coupling on small platinum nanoclusters, Phys. Rev. B., 2006, 73, 053201

    2006

  26. [34]

    X. Bai, J. Lv, F. Q. Zhang, J. F. Jia and H. S. Wua, Spin-orbit coupling effect on structural and magnetic properties of ConRh13n (n = 0 –13) clusters , J. Magn. Magn. Mater, 2018, 451, 360–367

    2018

  27. [35]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner. Ab initio molecular -dynamics simulation of the liquid - metal−amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys., 1994, 49, 14251

    1994

  28. [36]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented - wave method, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys., 1999, 59, 1758

    1999

  29. [37]

    J. P. Perdew, J. A. Chevary, S. H. Vosko, Jackson, K. A.; Pederson, M. R.; Singh, D. J.; Fiolhais, C. Atoms, molecules, solids, and surfaces: Applications of the generalized gradient approximati on for exchange and correlation, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys., 1992,...

    1992

  30. [38]

    Hammer, L

    B. Hammer, L. B. Hansen, J. K. Nørskov, Improved adsorption energetics within density- functional theory using revised Perdew -Burke-Ernzerhof functional, Phys. Rev. B., 1999, 59, 7413-7421

    1999

  31. [39]

    Klimeˇs1, D

    J. Klimeˇs1, D. R. Bowler and A. Michaelides, Chemical accuracy for the van der Waals density functional, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 2010, 22, 022201. 21

    2010

  32. [40]

    Steiner, S

    S. Steiner, S. Khmelevskyi, M. Marsmann and G. Kresse, Calculation of the magnetic anisotropy with projected -augmented-wave methodology and the case study of disordered Fe1−xCox alloys, Phys. Rev. B., 2016, 93, 224425

    2016

  33. [41]

    M. P. Teter, M. C. Payne and D. C. Allan, Solution of Schrödinger’s equation for large systems, Phys. Rev. B., 1989, 40, 12255

    1989

  34. [42]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Special points for Brillion -zone integrations, Phys. Rev. B., 1976, 13, 5188-5192

    1976

  35. [43]

    Calle-Vallejo, J

    F. Calle-Vallejo, J. I. Martı´nezac and J. Rossmeisl, Density functional studies of functionalized graphitic materials with late transition metals for oxygen reduction reactions, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2011, 13, 15639–15643

    2011

  36. [44]

    I. C. Man, H.-Y Su, F . Calle-Vallejo, H . A. Hansen, J . I. Martnez, N . G. Inoglu, J . Kitchin, T. F. Jaramillo, J .K. Nørskov and J. Rossmeisl. Universality in Oxygen Evolution Electrocatalysis on Oxide Surfaces, ChemCatChem. 2011, 3, 1159 – 1165

    2011

  37. [45]

    Siahrostami.; A

    A.Kulkarni.; S. Siahrostami.; A. Patel and J .K. Nørskov . Understanding Catalytic Activity Trends in the Oxygen Reduction Reaction, Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 2302−2312

    2018

  38. [46]

    M. T. M. Koper , Theory of multiple proton –electron transfer reactions and its implications for electrocatalysis, Chem. Sci., 2013, 4, 2710–2723

    2013

  39. [47]

    M. T. M. Koper, Thermodynamic theory of multi-electron transfer reactions: Implications for electrocatalysis, J. Electroanal. Chem., 2011, 660, 254–260

    2011

  40. [48]

    Viswanathan, H

    V. Viswanathan, H. A. Hansen, J. Rossmeisl and J. K. Nørskov, Universality in Oxygen Reduction Electrocatalysis on Metal Surfaces, ACS Catal., 2012, 2, 1654-1660. 22

    2012

  41. [49]

    Christensen, H

    R. Christensen, H. A. Hansen, C. F. Dickens, J. K. Nørskov and T. Vegge, Functional Independent Scaling Relation for ORR/OER Catalysts . J. Phys. Chem. C . 2016, 120, 24910−24916

    2016

  42. [50]

    L. G. V. Briquet, M. Sarwar, J. Mugo, G. Jones and F. Calle-Vallejo, A New Type of Scaling Relations to Assess the Accuracy of Computational Predictions of Catalytic Activities Applied to the Oxygen Evolution Reaction , ChemCatChem., 2017, 9, 1261 – 1268

    2017

  43. [51]

    I. F. L. Stephens, A. S. Bondarenko, U. Grønbjerg, J. Rossmeisl and I. Chorkendorff, Understanding the electrocatalysis of oxygen reduction on platinum and its alloys, Energy Environ. Sci, 2012, 5, 6744–6762

    2012

  44. [52]

    S. Back, Y. Jung, Importance of Ligand Effects Breaking the Scaling Relation for Core– Shell Oxygen Reduction Catalysts, ChemCatChem., 2017, 9, 3173–3179. Table of Content:

    2017

Pith tools

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