Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Self-limited Growth of an Oxyhydroxide Phase at the Fe3O4(001) Surface in Liquid and Ambient Pressure Water

T0 review · 3 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 Liquid water makes magnetite's (001) surface grow an ordered, self-limited iron oxyhydroxide phase.

desk verdict Liquid and high-pressure water exposure of Fe3O4(001) gives a self-limiting ordered chain phase at ~40% coverage—the experimental work is convincing, but the oxyhydroxide assignment with subsurface Fe extraction is an interpretation awaiting a structural probe or a concrete atomic model. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10619 v1 pith:CKFKRXTY submitted 2019-08-28 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Florian Kraushofer , Francesca Mirabella , Jian Xu , Jiří Pavelec , Jan Balajka , Matthias Müllner , Nikolaus Resch , Zdeněk Jakub
show 5 more authors
Jan Hulva Matthias Meier Michael Schmid Ulrike Diebold Gareth S. Parkinson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 68.47.Gh68.37.Ef
keywords Fe3O4(001)magnetitewaterdissociationironoxyhydroxidesubsurfacecationvacancyreconstructionscanningtunnellingmicroscopyX-rayphotoelectronspectroscopyself-limitedgrowth
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 what happens to the clean (001) surface of magnetite when it is exposed to liquid or near-ambient-pressure water: the surface, which in vacuum is stabilized by a subsurface cation vacancy reconstruction, becomes hydroxylated, loses that reconstruction, and slowly grows an ordered iron oxyhydroxide phase. The central discovery is that this growth is self-limited, saturating at roughly 40% coverage, because the water-splitting reaction stops once the surface oxygen lattice is saturated with hydrogen. According to the proposed mechanism, protons from dissociated water bind to surface oxygen, lift the reconstruction, and reduce surface Fe3+ to Fe2+, while hydroxide groups pair up and pull iron cations out of subsurface layers to form chain-like oxyhydroxide structures. This matters because such water-induced phases are the first atomic-scale steps of passivation and dissolution of an abundant environmental mineral, and because the same chain features appear in electrochemical scanning tunnelling microscopy at neutral pH, suggesting the phase also forms at a solid–electrolyte interface.

What carries the argument

The central object is the (√2 × √2)R45° subsurface cation vacancy (SCV) reconstruction of Fe3O4(001), in which an interstitial tetrahedral iron in the second layer replaces two octahedral iron atoms in the third layer; the paper's story is about how water removes this reconstruction and what replaces it. The load-bearing experimental machinery is the STM contrast rule, developed on the hydrogen-covered surface, that hydroxyl groups on the surface make nearby Fe cations appear bright in empty-state images, together with LEED's observation that the (√2 × √2) spots vanish after saturation and XPS's 531.6 eV OH component. The mechanistic machinery is dissociative water adsorption at high water chemical potential, which the paper links to the ~$10^{-5}$ mbar pressure threshold seen in earlier near-ambient-pressure XPS: above this threshold, water forms partially dissociated agglomerates on the surface at room temperature, and when the sample is re-evacuated the molecular water desorbs but the OH groups remain. Those OH groups then extract subsurface iron cations to form the oxyhydroxide chains, and the chain morphology is interpreted as autocatalytic growth with a rate-limiting step of moving subsurface iron into the chains.

What would settle it

Expose the saturated surface to isotopically labelled water (D2O or $H2^{18}$O) and track the 531.6 eV O 1s component: if that component does not follow the label, or if high-resolution STM resolves the chains as single protrusions not sitting between the iron rows, the two-OH-per-unit-cell model and the self-limited oxyhydroxide mechanism would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Exposure of the UHV-prepared Fe3O4(001)-(√2 × √2)R45° surface to ultrapure liquid water or 20 mbar water vapour makes the subsurface cation vacancy reconstruction disappear, leaving a (1 × 1) surface in LEED, and produces a roughly 40% coverage of bright chain-like protrusions in STM that are aligned along the [110] iron rows and show (1 × 2) spacing in dense regions. The paper assigns these protrusions to hydroxyl groups (OwaterH-) from dissociated water that are bound to iron cations extracted from subsurface layers, forming a surface iron oxyhydroxide phase; XPS shows an OH component at 531.6 eV and an increase in Fe2+ character, while the C 1s signal rules out contamination as the source of the chains. The mechanism proposed is that the protons adsorb on surface oxygen atoms, lift the reconstruction and reduce surface Fe3+, while pairs of OH- species coordinate subsurface tetrahedral iron and flip it up to the surface, nucleating autocatalytic chains. Growth terminates because once the surface oxygen lattice is saturated with hydrogen, no further water can dissociate; the saturation coverage comes out near the 50% expected from two OH groups per unit cell, with the observed 40% attributed to pre-existing hydroxylation or an additional minority OH site. The same chain structures are identified retrospectively in earlier EC-STM images at pH 7, which the paper takes as evidence that the oxyhydroxide phase exists at the solid–liquid interface under neutral conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The structural conclusion rests on reading the bright chain-like protrusions in the microscope images as hydroxyl groups from dissociated water bonded to iron atoms pulled up from just beneath the surface; if those protrusions are instead adsorbate clusters, substrate defects, or contaminant-derived species, the proposed oxyhydroxide phase would not be established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Fe3O4(001) surface is not inert under humid conditions: in liquid water or at 20 mbar, the well-defined UHV surface transforms to a hydroxylated, oxyhydroxide-covered surface at room temperature.
  • The ~40% saturated oxyhydroxide provides a reproducible model system for the first stages of magnetite passivation and dissolution; the spatial separation of protonated areas and OH-covered chains mirrors what the paper predicts for alkaline and acidic solution, respectively.
  • Because the same chain features are seen by EC-STM at pH 7, electrochemical studies of Fe3O4(001) in neutral electrolyte should be interpreted with this oxyhydroxide phase in mind, not as a pristine oxide surface.
  • In alkaline conditions, where OH- can adsorb directly from solution, the paper predicts that iron extraction would not need water dissociation and could form a complete monolayer of oxyhydroxide.
  • This is offered as the first atomic-scale imaging of an ambient-pressure-water-driven conversion to an (oxy)hydroxide on a bulk oxide, making the surface a candidate model for the active phases invoked in iron-containing oxygen-evolution electrocatalysts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If hydrogen saturation of the surface oxygen lattice is what stops growth, then dosing with D2O or H2^18O should move only the OH-related XPS component and the vibrational signature of the chains, a direct isotopic test of the assignment that the paper does not carry out.
  • The same mechanism predicts that other spinel (001) surfaces carrying a subsurface cation vacancy reconstruction would show similar self-limited chain growth in liquid water; testing Fe3O4(111), which exposes undercoordinated iron, would specifically probe the proposed extraction of subsurface tetrahedral iron.
  • Because the paper explicitly refrains from proposing a concrete atomic model, a computational search constrained by the observed (1 × 2) chain spacing, the 40% saturation coverage and the two-OH-per-unit-cell estimate could turn the proposed oxyhydroxide into a falsifiable structural prediction.
  • If the oxyhydroxide is indeed the stable interfacial phase at neutral pH, then the common assumption that electrochemical magnetite electrodes present the bulk-truncated oxide to solution would need revision, which could affect kinetic models of corrosion and of iron-based water-splitting catalysts.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a combined LEED, XPS, and STM study of the Fe3O4(001) surface after exposure to liquid water and near-ambient-pressure water vapor. The authors observe that water exposure lifts the subsurface cation vacancy reconstruction, producing a (1x1) terminated surface, and that bright chain-like features grow on the surface and saturate at approximately 40% coverage. They propose that dissociative water adsorption produces protons that hydroxylate the surface oxygen lattice and abstract subsurface Fe cations that, together with OH groups, form a self-limited iron oxyhydroxide phase. The paper also shows that pre-saturating the surface with atomic hydrogen prevents chain formation, and that similar chain features appear in previous EC-STM images at pH 7, suggesting relevance for electrochemical interfaces.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the paper provides the first atomic-scale images of a self-limited oxyhydroxide phase forming on a bulk oxide under water exposure, with implications for corrosion, dissolution, and electrocatalysis. The experimental approach—UHV-compatible liquid dosing combined with STM, LEED, and XPS—is novel and yields several robust observations, including the independence of the saturation coverage from exposure time and temperature, the atomic-hydrogen control experiment, and the direct comparison with EC-STM. These strengths make the paper valuable even if the detailed structural model is not fully proven. However, the central claim that the chains are an Fe-extracting oxyhydroxide phase rests on indirect evidence; the authors themselves refrain from proposing a concrete atomic model, and the spatially averaged XPS cannot unambiguously isolate the chemical state of the chains.

major comments (3)
  1. [Discussion, Fig. 2e] The assignment of the bright chain features to a surface iron oxyhydroxide phase with Fe extracted from the subsurface is not directly supported by the data. The XPS O 1s component at 531.6 eV (21% of total area) is spatially averaged over the entire surface, which includes the surrounding (1x1) hydroxylated regions estimated to cover ~60% of the area. The observed OH component could therefore be accounted for by hydroxylation of the surrounding surface alone, and no spectroscopic or microscopic fingerprint isolates the chains' chemical composition. The authors state in the Discussion that they 'refrain from putting forward any concrete atomic model,' which underscores that the Fe-extraction picture is an interpretation of STM contrast rather than a determined structure. To make the central claim load-bearing, the manuscript should provide additional evidence that the chains contain Fe cations and OH groups, for example through chain-selective spectroscopy, DFT-based STM image simulation, or a quantitative comparison of the XPS OH intensity with the chain coverage.
  2. [Results, Fig. 2d] The increase in the Fe2+ satellite and the shoulder at ~708 eV after water exposure is attributed to the formation of the oxyhydroxide phase, but this spectral change is also expected from the lifting of the SCV reconstruction and H adsorption alone, independent of chain formation. The manuscript does not quantify the expected Fe2+ increase from reconstruction lifting, so the Fe 2p data cannot discriminate between the proposed Fe extraction and a simple hydroxylation/reconstruction-lifting scenario. The authors should either show that the Fe2+ increase is larger than what can be explained by H adsorption alone, or temper the claim that the Fe 2p data support the oxyhydroxide phase.
  3. [Results, Fig. 3b-c] The atomic-hydrogen pre-saturation experiment is presented as evidence that surface passivation occurs because H saturation prevents further water dissociation. However, an equally consistent interpretation is that lifting the SCV reconstruction removes the subsurface Fe supply needed for Fe extraction, thereby preventing chain growth regardless of water dissociation kinetics. The manuscript should explicitly discuss this alternative and, if possible, provide an experimental or computational test that separates H-blocking from Fe-unavailability, for example by pre-hydroxylating the surface without lifting the reconstruction or by performing the experiment on a surface where the reconstruction has been lifted by another means.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains a typographical error: 'in-situ EC-STM image of of Fe3O4(001)' should read 'of Fe3O4(001)'. The rest of the caption is clear.
  2. [Results, Fig. 2c and Discussion] The coverage estimate of '≈40%' depends on the assumption that a fully packed (1x2) chain phase corresponds to 100% coverage. This normalization should be stated more explicitly in the main text rather than only in the figure caption, and the authors could provide the counting statistics or error bars for the coverage values.
  3. [Discussion] The notation 'Fetet' (tetrahedral Fe in the subsurface) is used throughout but is not defined in a single place. A brief definition, perhaps in Figure 1 caption, would improve readability for non-specialists.
  4. [Results, Fig. 3a] The observation of isolated OwaterH- species and groups of four protrusions is interesting, but the text does not provide a quantitative measure of their density or a clear statement of how they correlate with chain length or coverage. A short statistical analysis would strengthen the precursor-state interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims rest on new STM/LEED/XPS observations and an in-paper atomic-H control; self-citations are calibrations or background, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that water exposure lifts the subsurface cation vacancy reconstruction, grows chain-like features to ~40% saturation, and that H pre-saturation prevents chain formation—are supported by direct experimental observations (STM, LEED, XPS) and by the atomic-H control experiment reported in Fig. 3, which does not presuppose the oxyhydroxide conclusion. The XPS OH component at 531.6 eV and the Fe2+ satellite changes are interpreted as hydroxylation and reduction; while this interpretation is not unique, it is not a circular reduction because no fitted parameter or prior result is used to force the phase assignment. References to the authors' prior work (e.g., refs 25, 31, 32, 34) are used as calibrations (formate coverage), background (water desorption, atomic-H behavior), and previously published EC-STM images; these are externally established benchmarks rather than assumptions that contain the target result. The estimate that each protrusion contains two OwaterH- groups is a consistency argument, explicitly checked against XPS, and the model's predicted 50% saturation is not adjusted to match the observed 40%—the discrepancy is discussed openly. The paper's own statement that it 'refrain[s] from putting forward any concrete atomic model' marks the structural assignment as underdetermined, but underdetermination is a correctness risk, not circularity. No equation or definition is shown to be equivalent to its own input.

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

No mathematical derivation or numerical fit is involved; the ledger captures the interpretative assumptions behind the structural model. The only normalization entered as a free parameter is the coverage convention. The central evidential burden is the mapping between STM contrast, XPS peak assignments, and the proposed oxyhydroxide structure.

free parameters (1)
  • Coverage normalization for the (1x2) chain phase = 100% coverage = fully packed (1x2) array
    The reported 40% saturation is estimated by assuming the most densely packed observed chains correspond to a (1x2) periodicity; a different packing convention would change the absolute coverage number.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The O 1s component at 531.6 eV arises from hydroxyl groups, following ref 25, and not from other oxygen species.
    This is used to quantify OH coverage and to conclude that the new phase is an oxyhydroxide (Figs. 2e, 3d, and 3e).
  • domain assumption Lifting of the (sqrt(2) x sqrt(2))R45 degree reconstruction requires approximately two H+ per unit cell, following refs 31, 32, and 34.
    This is the basis for estimating two OwaterH- groups per STM protrusion and for interpreting the H-saturation passivation mechanism.
  • domain assumption Empty-state STM bright protrusions on Fe rows report OH-induced local density-of-state changes, following refs 32 and 33.
    This underlies the identification of the bright chains and surrounding species as OH-related rather than purely topographic or contaminant features.
  • domain assumption The water exposure setup delivers only ultrapure water and trace adventitious carbon, not reactive metal or other contaminants.
    This supports the exclusion of contamination as the cause of chain features; it relies on chamber conditioning and C 1s XPS checks.
invented entities (1)
  • Chain-like self-limited surface iron oxyhydroxide phase with subsurface Fetet extraction
    purpose: Accounts for the STM chains, the 531.6 eV OH XPS signal, the shift to (1x1), and the 40% saturation coverage.
    The phase is proposed from combined STM/XPS/LEED evidence, but the paper explicitly withholds a concrete atomic model and provides no independent spectroscopic fingerprint or computational validation uniquely identifying the phase. The EC-STM images are from the same group's earlier work and are qualitative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-limited Growth of an Oxyhydroxide Phase at the Fe3O4(001) Surface in Liquid and Ambient Pressure Water." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKFKRXTY

@misc{pith2026190810619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-limited Growth of an Oxyhydroxide Phase at the Fe3O4(001) Surface in Liquid and Ambient Pressure Water},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKFKRXTY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10619}
}
read the original abstract

Atomic-scale investigations of metal oxide surfaces exposed to aqueous environments are vital to understand degradation phenomena (e.g. dissolution and corrosion) as well as the performance of these materials in applications. Here, we utilize a new experimental setup for the UHV-compatible dosing of liquids to explore the stability of the Fe3O4(001)-c(2x2) surface following exposure to liquid and ambient pressure water. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and low energy electron diffraction (LEED) data show that extensive hydroxylation causes the surface to revert to a bulk-like (1x1) termination. However, scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) images reveal a more complex situation, with the slow growth of an oxyhydroxide phase, which ultimately saturates at approximately 40% coverage. We conclude that the new material contains OH groups from dissociated water coordinated to Fe cations extracted from subsurface layers, and that the surface passivates once the surface oxygen lattice is saturated with H because no further dissociation can take place. The resemblance of the STM images to those acquired in previous electrochemical STM (EC-STM) studies lead us to believe a similar structure exists at the solid-electrolyte interface during immersion at pH 7.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1 M. A. Henderson, and S. A. Chambers, Surf. Sci. 449 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [17]

    Grosvenor, B

    36 A. Grosvenor, B. Kobe, M. Biesinger, and N. McIntyre, Surf. Interface Anal. 36 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [76]

    Liu, and C

    30 H. Liu, and C. Di Valentin, Nanoscale 10 (2018) 11021. 31 O. Gamba, H. Noei, J. Pavelec, R. Bliem, M. Schmid, U. Diebold, A. Stierle, and G. S. Parkinson, J. Phys. Chem. C 119 (2015) 20459. 32 G. S. Parkinson, N. Mulakaluri, Y. Losovyj, P. Jacobson, R. Pentcheva, and U. Diebold, Phys. Rev. B 82 (2010) 125413. 33 S. Hiura, A. Ikeuchi, S. Shirini, A. Sub...

    work page 2018

  4. [135]

    2 H. H. Kan, R. J. Colmyer, A. Asthagiri, and J. F. Weaver, J. Phys. Chem. C 113 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [260]

    Beverskog, and I

    17 B. Beverskog, and I. Puigdomenech, Corros. Sci. 38 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [335]

    Zhang, Y.-S

    54 X. Zhang, Y.-S. Chen, P. V. Kamat, and S. Ptasinska, J. Phys. Chem. C 122 (2018) 13894. 55 O. Brummel, Y. Lykhach, M. Vorokhta, B. Šmíd, C. Stumm, F. Faisal, T. Skála, N. Tsud, A. Neitzel, K. Beranová, K. C. Prince, V. Matolín, and J. Libuda, J. Phys. Chem. C (2019)

    work page 2018

  7. [527]

    Dionigi, and P

    44 F. Dionigi, and P. Strasser, Adv. Energy Mater. 6 (2016) 1600621. 45 L. Trotochaud, J. K. Ranney, K. N. Williams, and S. W. Boettcher, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134 (2012) 17253. 46 M. S. Burke, S. Zou, L. J. Enman, J. E. Kellon, C. A. Gabor, E. Pledger, and S. W. Boettcher, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6 (2015)

    work page 2016

  8. [786]

    Aschauer, and A

    12 U. Aschauer, and A. Selloni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 166102. 13 I. M. Nadeem, J. P. W. Treacy, S. Selcuk, X. Torrelles, H. Hussain, A. Wilson, D. C. Grinter, G. Cabailh, O. Bikondoa, C. Nicklin, A. Selloni, J. Zegenhagen, R. Lindsay, and G. Thornton, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9 (2018)

    work page 2011

Show all 29 references
  1. [925]

    Favaro, J

    52 M. Favaro, J. Yang, S. Nappini, E. Magnano, F. M. Toma, E. J. Crumlin, J. Yano, and I. D. Sharp, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139 (2017)

    2017

  2. [1001]

    Müllner, M

    41 M. Müllner, M. Riva, F. Kraushofer, M. Schmid, G. S. Parkinson, S. F. Mertens, and U. Diebold, J. Phys. Chem. C (2018) 42 A. Sala, H. Marchetto, Z.-H. Qin, S. Shaikhutdinov, T. Schmidt, and H.-J. Freund, Phys. Rev. B 86 (2012) 155430. 43 X. Li, J. Paier, J. Sauer, F. Mirabe...

    2018

  3. [1215]

    Meier, J

    25 M. Meier, J. Hulva, Z. Jakub, J. Pavelec, M. Setvin, R. Bliem, M. Schmid, U. Diebold, C. Franchini, and G. S. Parkinson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115 (2018) E5642. 26 T. Kendelewicz, S. Kaya, J. Newberg, H. Bluhm, N. Mulakaluri, W. Moritz, M. Scheffler, A. Nilsson, R. Pentche...

    2018

  4. [1409]

    Balajka, M

    11 J. Balajka, M. A. Hines, W. J. DeBenedetti, M. Komora, J. Pavelec, M. Schmid, and U. Diebold, Science 361 (2018)

    2018

  5. [1495]

    Costa, K

    3 D. Costa, K. Sharkas, M. M. Islam, and P. Marcus, Surf. Sci. 603 (2009)

    2009

  6. [1564]

    Taguchi, A

    37 M. Taguchi, A. Chainani, S. Ueda, M. Matsunami, Y. Ishida, R. Eguchi, S. Tsuda, Y. Takata, M. Yabashi, and K. Tamasaku, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 256405. 38 S. Yamamoto, T. Kendelewicz, J. T. Newberg, G. Ketteler, D. E. Starr, E. R. Mysak, K. J. Andersson, H. Ogasawara, H...

    2015

  7. [1785]

    Mirabella, E

    10 F. Mirabella, E. Zaki, F. Ivars‐Barceló, X. Li, J. Paier, J. Sauer, S. Shaikhutdinov, and H. J. Freund, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57 (2018)

    2018

  8. [1801]

    Mu, Z.-j

    9 R. Mu, Z.-j. Zhao, Z. Dohnálek, and J. Gong, Chem. Soc. Rev. 46 (2017)

    2017

  9. [1859]

    19 J. Choi, W. Mayr-Schmölzer, F. Mittendorfer, J. Redinger, U. Diebold, and M. Schmid, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26 (2014) 225003. 20 J. Balajka, J. Pavelec, M. Komora, M. Schmid, and U. Diebold, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 89 (2018) 083906. 21 L. Haar, NBS/NRC steam tables (CRC Press...

    2014

  10. [2121]

    18 A. F. White, M. L. Peterson, and M. F. Hochella Jr, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 58 (1994)

    1994

  11. [2256]

    39 G. S. Parkinson, Z. k. Novotný, P. Jacobson, M. Schmid, and U. Diebold, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133 (2011) 12650. 20 40 J. R. Rustad, A. R. Felmy, and E. J. Bylaska, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 67 (2003)

    2011

  12. [2484]

    Onsten, D

    4 A. Onsten, D. Stoltz, P. Palmgren, S. Yu, M. Göthelid, and U. O. Karlsson, J. Phys. Chem. C 114 (2010) 11157. 5 R. Włodarczyk, M. Sierka, K. Kwapien, J. Sauer, E. Carrasco, A. Aumer, J. F. Gomes, M. Sterrer, and H.-J. Freund, J. Phys. Chem. C 115 (2011)

    2010

  13. [2719]

    Mulakaluri, R

    27 N. Mulakaluri, R. Pentcheva, M. Wieland, W. Moritz, and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 176102. 28 N. Mulakaluri, R. Pentcheva, and M. Scheffler, J. Phys. Chem. C 114 (2010) 11148. 29 B. Arndt, R. Bliem, O. Gamba, J. E. van der Hoeven, H. Noei, U. Diebold, G. S. P...

    2009

  14. [3131]

    Balajka, U

    14 J. Balajka, U. Aschauer, S. F. Mertens, A. Selloni, M. Schmid, and U. Diebold, J. Phys. Chem. C 121 (2017) 26424. 15 J. Fester, Z. Sun, J. Rodriguez-Fernandez, A. S. Walton, and J. V. Lauritsen, J. Phys. Chem. C (2019) 16 J. V. Muylder, and M. Pourbaix, by M. Pourbaix, Rerg...

    2017

  15. [3264]

    Risch, A

    49 M. Risch, A. Grimaud, K. J. May, K. A. Stoerzinger, T. J. Chen, A. N. Mansour, and Y. Shao-Horn, J. Phys. Chem. C 117 (2013)

    2013

  16. [3737]

    47 M. S. Burke, L. J. Enman, A. S. Batchellor, S. Zou, and S. W. Boettcher, Chem. Mater. 27 (2015)

    2015

  17. [6764]

    6 R. Mu, D. C. Cantu, V.-A. Glezakou, I. Lyubinetsky, R. Rousseau, and Z. Dohnálek, J. Phys. Chem. C 119 (2015) 23552. 19 7 U. Diebold, J. Chem. Phys. 147 (2017) 040901. 8 Z.-T. Wang, Y.-G. Wang, R. Mu, Y. Yoon, A. Dahal, G. K. Schenter, V.-A. Glezakou, R. Rousseau, I. Lyubine...

    2015

  18. [7549]

    48 K. J. May, C. E. Carlton, K. A. Stoerzinger, M. Risch, J. Suntivich, Y.-L. Lee, A. Grimaud, and Y. Shao- Horn, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 3 (2012)

    2012

  19. [8625]

    Fabbri, M

    51 E. Fabbri, M. Nachtegaal, T. Binninger, X. Cheng, B.-J. Kim, J. Durst, F. Bozza, T. Graule, R. Schäublin, and L. Wiles, Nat. Mater. 16 (2017)

    2017

  20. [8628]

    Bergmann, E

    50 A. Bergmann, E. Martinez-Moreno, D. Teschner, P. Chernev, M. Gliech, J. F. de Araújo, T. Reier, H. Dau, and P. Strasser, Nat. Commun. 6 (2015)

    2015

  21. [8960]

    53 J. Yang, J. K. Cooper, F. M. Toma, K. A. Walczak, M. Favaro, J. W. Beeman, L. H. Hess, C. Wang, C. Zhu, and S. Gul, Nat. Mater. 16 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

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