[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Phase Identifiers 2
- To: Multiple recipients of list <phase-identifiers@iucr.org>
- Subject: Phase Identifiers 2
- From: "I. David Brown" <idbrown@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:29:37 +0100 (BST)
Dear Colleagues Now that summer is over, I would like to resume our discussion of phase identifiers. Before doing so, I would like to welcome two new members to the group: John Westbrook from the Protein Data Bank and Pierre Villars of the Pauling File. Pierre has had considerable experience in looking at the properties of different phases, particularly those of binary compounds. The previous contributions to this discussion can be reviewed at: http://agate.iucr.org/iucr-top/lists/phase-identifiers but a short summary will provide a context for our continuing discussions. 1. Our task is to produce an identifier suitable for computer use that would uniquely and unambiguously identify a particular material phase. Such an identifier would be used, e.g., for connecting information on the same phase stored in different databases. 2. We decided that the identifier may be composed of several components. For convenience in discussing what these components might be, we decided to express the identifier in terms of CIF- like items, each item corresponding to one of the components. The final format or formats of the identifier are to be determined later once the content has been settled. 3. We distinguished between internal and external identifiers, the internal identifiers being derived form the properties of the phase itself, the external identifiers being a code arbitrarily assigned by an external agency (e.g., CAS numbers, CSD-REFCODES). We agreed that our identifier may be compose of a combination of internal and external components. 4. We identified enough difficulties with characterizing a given phase using internal components that it is unlikely that we can satisfy all the conditions specified in Section 1 above and we may have to be content with an identifier that, while matching the target phase, may also match a small number of other phases that are not being targeted. To this end we accept that at a given stage in characterizing a phase, there may not be enough information to fully identify the phase, and as a result not all of the components of the identifier may be present. The more complete the identifier, the more likely it is that only the target phase will be retrieved. 5. Insofar as possible, we should avoid the use of numbers that are subject to experimental uncertainty (e.g. density) as such numbers are not unique. Integers, e.g., space group numbers, may be used since they are both unique and unambiguous. 6. A list of components that have so far been proposed are: a) composition b) phase type c) crystal system d) space group number e) atom count in unit cell f) CAS number a) The suggested way of giving the composition is to use the sum formula normalized so that the multiplicities of the different elements all lie between 0 and 1.0 (the element with the highest multiplicity has its multiplicity set to 1.0). Other multiplicities are given as fractions (not decimal numbers) for stoichiometric substances. Where the multiplicity is irrational or not well defined, a range of values may be given in a loop, e.g. for Pb(Ti,Zr)O3 we would give: _composition_formula 'O1 Pb1/3 Ti*1/3 Zr*1/3' loop_ _composition_range_element _composition_range_low _composition_range_high Ti 0.5 0.6 Zr 0.4 0.5 Note that specifying Ti* as having a multiplicity of 1/3 means its range of composition values may meaningfully lie between 0 and 1.0, since the limiting compositions are PbTiO3 and PbZrO3. The ranges are not unique and may have different values depending on the information available. However, a match would be found provided the range specified in the query overlapped the range given in the target symbol. However, in evaluating the composition range, both the rational multiplicity given in the formula and the decimal value given in the range loop must be taken into account, i.e., for Ti the composition would range between 0.5/3 and 0.6/3. The formulae could be simplified by omitting 1 wherever it occurs as an integer, e.g., 'O Pb/3 Ti*/3 Zr*/3'. Al2SiO5 would then appear as 'Al2/5 O Si/5'. A material such as Fe S(1+x) would be given as: 'Fe* S1' or more simply 'Fe* S' with Fe having a composition range from say 0.90 to 0.95. Ba2Cu3YO(6+x), 0<x<1, in which the major component is variable could be rendered: 'Ba2/7 Cu3/7 O* Y/7' with O having the range 0.86 to 1.0 (i.e., 6/7 to 7/7). Note that in this case O would be identified as the major component (or at least potentially the major component) by the absence of a fractional multiplier. Compare with 'O Pb/3 Ti*/3 Zr*/3'. Assuming that we adopt this convention we need to address the following questions: i) Does this description lead to a unique description while at the same time cover all the possibilities? ii) Should there be some lower limit to the multiplicities that are included in the formula so that a long list of minor components such as is found, e.g., in many minerals, is not given, or can software be designed to ignore components that are present below a prescribed cut-off? If the formula should omit the minor components, what should the cut-off be and should the minor components be listed separately, i.e., might they be important in some aspects of phase identification? iii) Is there a better way of expressing the composition? b) phase type This would be a flag to indicate the type of phase that was being described. Possible values of this flag are: liq liquid xtl crystal lxt liquid crystal qxt quasi-crystal gls glass amp amorphous inc incommensurate crystal (strictly a subgroup of xtl) Other values suggested by Sidney Abrahams (and perhaps represent a different component of the identifier) are: com composition-change morphotropic phase (i.e., an inhomogeneous crystal containing regions of different composition and structure). pol polytype phase tra transient-structure phase non non-crystalline phase (but it might be better to use some of the values given above) It would be necessary to develop some tight definitions for these flags to allow their unambiguous assignment, indicating which might be subgroups (e.g, amp and gls as subgroups of non) so that a search program would recognize amp and non (for example) as a match. If two of these flags are needed (e.g., xtl and pol) they should be assigned to different components. Each component should contain only one flag. Items c to e below would only be needed for a crystalline phase. c) crystal system This would be one of the standard symbols currently used in the Pearson symbol: a, m, o, t, h and c. d) space group number The allowed range is from 1 to 230, but enantiomorphic space groups would have to be arbitrarily assigned to the lower space group number, e.g., 144 should be used to represent both 144 (P31) and 145 (P32), that is, 145 would not appear in the enumeration list for this component. Chirality, if known and important, should appear as a separate component (any suggestions how this should be expressed?) The space group may not always be known, in which case the crystal system would provide partial information. Other possible partial symmetry components would be the crystal point group and the lattice centring (P, E (one face centred), F, I, C). If all trigonal, hexagonal and rhombohedral space groups are represented by the crystal system component 'h', should we include R centring to identify rhombohedral space groups? All symbols used to describe the symmetry must be setting-independent. e) atom count in unit cell This is used in the Pearson symbol and, providing the unit cell is clearly identified, it should be unambiguous except where partial occupancy occurs. It might be possible to normalize this to the atom sites indicated in the chemical formula, e.g., in 'Fe* S' discussed above, the atom count would be 24 for space group 190 (P-62c). That is there are nominally 2 atoms in the formula unit and these are repeated 12 times by symmetry in the unit cell. Since this number must be an integer, how should it be rounded in the cases where the number of atoms in the cell is non-integral? f) CAS number If this were used it would have to be a number that corresponds to the actual composition of the phase. Different CAS numbers may be assigned for a molecule and for the same molecule with solvent of crystallization, e.g., CuSO4 and CuSO4. 5H2O have different CAS numbers. Other possible external components such as the CSD REFCODE are usually specific to a substance but not to the phase. I welcome discussion on these proposals and suggestions for other items that might be included in the phase identifier. Please respond by replying to this message. That will ensure that your reply is linked to this message when browsing the discussion list by thread. Best wishes David ***************************************************** Dr.I.David Brown, Professor Emeritus Brockhouse Institute for Materials Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Tel: 1-(905)-525-9140 ext 24710 Fax: 1-(905)-521-2773 idbrown@mcmaster.ca *****************************************************
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Prev by Date: RE: Towards the definition of a phase identifier
- Next by Date: New member
- Prev by thread: New member
- Next by thread: Towards the definition of a phase identifier
- Index(es):