Search for: All records

Mixed metal oxyhalides are an exciting class of photocatalysts, capable of the sustainable generation of fuels and remediation of pollutants with solar energy. Bismuth oxyhalides of the types Bi4MO8X (M = Nb and Ta; X = Cl and Br) and Bi2AO4X (A = most lanthanides; X = Cl, Br, and I) have an electronic structure that imparts photostability, as their valence band maxima (VBM) are composed of O 2p orbitals rather than X np orbitals that typify many other bismuth oxyhalides. Here, flux-based synthesis of intergrowth Bi4NbO8Cl–Bi2GdO4Cl is reported, testing the hypothesis that both intergrowth stoichiometry and M identity serve as levers toward tunable optoelectronic properties. X-ray scattering and atomically resolved electron microscopy verify intergrowth formation. Facile manipulation of the Bi4NbO8Cl-to-Bi2GdO4Cl ratio is achieved with the specific ratio influencing both the crystal and electronic structures of the intergrowths. This compositional flexibility and crystal structure engineering can be leveraged for photocatalytic applications, with comparisons to the previously reported Bi4TaO8Cl–Bi2GdO4Cl intergrowth revealing how subtle structural and compositional features can impact photocatalytic materials. 

The global instability index (GII) is a computationally inexpensive bond valence-based metric originally designed to evaluate the total bond strain in a crystal. Recently, the GII has gained popularity as a feature of data-driven models in materials research. Although prior studies have proven that GII is an effective predictor of structural distortions and decomposition energy when applied to small datasets, the wider use of GII as a global indicator of structural stability has yet to be evaluated. To that end, we compute GII for thousands of compounds in inorganic structure databases and partition compounds by chemical interactions underlying their stability to understand the GII values and their variations. Our results show that the GII captures relative chemical trends, such as electronegativity, even beyond the intended domain of strongly ionic compounds. However, we also find that GII magnitudes vary significantly with factors such as chemistry (cation–anion identities and bond character), geometry (connectivity), data source, and model bias, making GII suitable for comparisons within controlled datasets but unsuitable as an absolute, universal metric for structural feasibility.