Spiral‐Concave Prussian Blue Crystals with Rich Steps: Growth Mechanism and Coordination Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Investigating the formation and transformation mechanisms of spiral‐concave crystals holds significant potential for advancing innovative material design and comprehension. We examined the kinetics‐controlled nucleation and growth mechanisms of Prussian Blue crystals with spiral concave structures, and constructed a detailed crystal growth phase diagram. The spiral‐concave hexacyanoferrate (SC‐HCF) crystals, characterized by high‐density surface steps and a low stress‐strain architecture, exhibit enhanced activity due to their facile interaction with reactants. Notably, the coordination environment of SC‐HCF can be precisely modulated by the introduction of diverse metals. Utilizing X‐ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy and in situ ultraviolet‐visible spectroscopy, we elucidated the formation mechanism of SC‐HCF to Co‐HCF facilitated by oriented adsorption‐ion exchange (OA‐IE) process. Both experimental data, and density functional theory confirm that Co‐HCF possesses an optimized energy band structure, capable of adjusting the local electronic environment and enhancing the performance of the oxygen evolution reaction. This work not only elucidates the formation mechanism and coordination regulation for rich steps HCF, but also offers a novel perspective for constructing nanocrystals with intricate spiral‐concave structures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".