[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Phase ID proposal 4
- To: Multiple recipients of list <phase-identifiers@iucr.org>
- Subject: Phase ID proposal 4
- From: "I. David Brown" <idbrown@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:52:52 GMT
Dear Colleagues, Michael Berndt has made some valuable suggestions for what we should include in our phase identifier based on his hands-on experience. This has mostly been with inorganic phases which may be the most difficult problem, but we need some input from those with experience with organic and biological compounds. Perhaps Sam Motherwell or John Westbrook have some suggestions. In this email I present an updated proposal (number 4). Can you please check it over and reply with your comments to the group list. General comments ---------------- Michael's suggested identifiers can be divided into those that provide chemical characterization, and those that provide crystallographic characterization. For inorganic compounds a sum formula is sufficient for a chemical characterization, but for organic molecules we need to have some way of identifying the different isomers since the sum formula by itself is not sufficient. The crystal structure can be best identified by the space group number and Wyckoff sequence as Michael suggests though for organic compounds the Wyckoff sequence may less helpful since usually only general positions are occupied. The crystal system and lattice centring are implicit in the space group number but could be useful in cases where the space group is not known. There are cases where different Wyckoff sequences correspond to the same structure. For example in P-1 the sequences a,b; c,g; d,f and e,h all describe the same structure and differ only in the choice of origin. We could require that where a choice of Wyckoff positions is possible, the lowest letter in the alphabet should be chosen. Michael, have you run across this problem, and if so, how do you deal with it in your program? Misassigned space groups will be a major problem particularly with older studies. We might expect that a wrong space group would be a sub- or super-group of the correct one so the probability of a match would be higher if we could identify the sub- and super-groups of the target. This could be done using a matrix such as that shown in Table 1 below. It would not however be possible to compare the Wyckoff sequences in such cases without a considerably more sophisticated program. If the two materials were characterized under the same conditions of pressure and temperature and had related space groups, there is a good chance that at least one of the space groups was misassigned and the phases are the same. If they were characterized under different conditions there would be a higher chance that the phases really are different. It would therefore be helpful to have information on the temperature and pressure at which the material was characterized. We could prepare a table (see Table 1) showing all the sub- and super-space groups in a matrix form to test whether two phases reported with different space groups might be the same. The use of such a matrix would have additional advantages. It could contain the crystal system and lattice type for use in cases where the space group was not known, and enantiomorphic space groups could be equivalenced so that, e.g., 76 (P41) would be considered the same as 78 (P43). If it were necessary to distinguish optical enantiomers, this should be done using a different item, since in many cases the choice between P41 and P43 is made arbitrarily. TABLE 1 ------- Partial matrix of sub- and super-groups of each space group with the crystal system and lattice type shown ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 aP aP mP mP mE mP mP mE mE mP mP mE 1 0 x x x x x x x x x x x 2 x 0 x x x 3 x 0 x x x 4 x 0 x x 5 x x x 0 x 6 x 0 x x x x 7 x 0 x 8 x x 0 9 x x 0 10 x x x x 0 11 x x x x 0 12 x x x x x 0 Michael points to the possibility of two different phases having the same Wyckoff sequence: 'In rare cases we find compounds with the same chemical composition and the same Wyckoff sequence but nevertheless describing different modifications (Example: ICSD entries 24674 and 27116; both H7 N O6; Wyckoff sequence: 19, a7).' This should not be a serious concern. This particular example consists of two different structures proposed for the same phase so they ought to match in a database search. The structures were proposed around 50 years ago when there was concern about homomorphic structures, structures that could never be distinguished because they give rise to identical diffraction patterns. Both the structures quoted above are published by the same author but only one is likely to be correct. True homomorphs are very rare and only one of them will have a reasonable crystal chemistry. We are more likely to run into the problem of structures with identical Wyckoff sequences in organic compounds where all the atoms occupy general positions. A method of distinguishing different isomers would help here. We will never be able to get a perfect score using identifiers based on the observed properties of the phases because it is first necessary that each material must be fully and correctly characterized, which is not always the case. We should aim to ensure as high a success rate as possible with the minimum of false matches. We should be able to achieve near perfect matches for correctly and fully characterized phases, but in other cases we should be content if we can retrieve all the poorly characterized phases that are consistent with the target phase. We should allow for matching programs to include user-set tolerances for matches, e.g., 10% variation in composition, acceptance or non-acceptance of sub- or super-groups of the target space group, etc. PROPOSED CONTENTS OF THE IDENTIFIER ----------------------------------- Chemical characterization: -------------------------- Primary: *Sum formula. For non-molecular (e.g. inorganic) materials only the relative abundances would be meaningful, for molecular materials (e.g. organic) the absolute abundances would be needed to aid in identifying the molecule. Secondary: *Some method is needed to identify the topology (connectivity) particularly for molecular materials. This might also be useful for some non-molecular materials. Sam, do you have any way of dealing with this problem in the CSD? Crystallographic characterization: ---------------------------------- Primary: *Phase and structure type (amorphous, liquid, Pauling file standard structure code). *The space group number. *Wyckoff sequence. Secondary: *The crystal system and lattice centring could be given instead of the space group if the latter is not known. This information can be included in the space-group matrix shown in Table 1 to help in matching this information to particular space groups. *Official mineral name for minerals. Technically these names should be used only for natural materials but we could extend them to synthetic analogues since we are interested here in the structure and not the origin of the material. See Table 2 for possible problems. Other properties: ----------------- Primary: *Temperature and pressure at which the material was characterized. This would not itself be part of the identifier but could be used to indicate the likelihood of a close match representing the same phase. For example, if two phases had space groups that were closely related they would be more likely to be the same phase if they were measured at the same temperature and pressure. We should allow for ranges of temperatures and pressures to be included in this field. Secondary: *These would include colour, form etc. that might be useful for poorly characterized materials. TABLE 2 Example ------- The following table shows how these identifiers might be assigned in the Pb/Sb sulfide system. I have included both the space group number and the crystal system together with lattice centring to show what each would look like, though only the space group number is needed. The mineral name has also been given (even when the material was synthesized in the laboratory) to show how it can be helpful for phase identification. For an explanation of possible problems, see the notes on each of the entries below. # Proposed ID Sb/(Sb+Pb) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Pb-S4-Sb2,*,liq,*,*,*,900K 0.75 3 Pb-S,*,NaCl,225cF,b-a,Galena 0.00 4 Pb7-S13-Sb4,*,oxtl,19oP,a24 0.36 5 Pb3-S6-Sb2,*,oxtl,62oP 0.40 6 Pb5-S11-Sb4,*,oxtl,62oP,c20,Boulangerite 0.44 7 Bi0.3-Pb5-S10.7-Sb3.7-Se0.3,*,oxtl,14mP,e40,Boulangerite 0.43 8 Pb4.82-S11-Sb4.11,*,oxtl,62oP,c21,Boulangerite 0.46 9 Pb9-S22-Sb9,*,oxtl,62oP,c23,Boulangerite 0.50 10 Pb9-S21-Sb8,*,oxtl,15mE,f19-e2,Semseyite 0.47 11 Pb2-S5-Sb2,*,oxtl,62oP,c9 0.50 12 Pb4-S11-Sb4,*,oxtl,55oP,h4-g5-b 0.50 13 Pb7-S19-Sb8,*,oxtl,15mE,f16-e2,Heteromorphite 0.53 14 Pb5-S14-Sb6,*,oxtl,2aP,i25 0.55 15 Pb4-S13-Sb6,*,oxtl,12mE,i23,Robinsonite 0.60 16 Pb4-S13-Sb6,*,oxtl,1aP,a46,Robinsonite 0.60 17 Pb5-S17-Sb8,*,oxtl,15mE,f14-e2,Plagionite 0.62 18 Pb1.6-S7-Sb3.4,*,oxtl,173hP,c12,Zinkenite 0.68 19 Pb18-S81-Sb42,*,oxtl,173hP,c13-a2,Zinkenite 0.70 20 Pb3-S15-Sb8,*,oxtl,15mE,f12-e2,Fueloeppite 0.73 21 S15-Sb9.8,*,oxtl,15mE,f12-e2,(Pb-free Fueloeppite)1.0 22 S3-Sb2,*,Sb2S3,62oP,c5,Stibinite 1.0 23 S3-Sb2,*,Sb2S3,47oP,l3-k3-j3-13,Stibinite 1.0 24 S3-Sb2,*,Sb2S3,31oP,a10,Stibinite 1.0 NOTES TO TABLE 2 # ICSD numbers and comment --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Liquid (temperature given in K) 3 38293, 62190, 62191-4, 63091-5, 68701, 68712, 68969, 80539. 4 75143. 5 This phase is not well characterized 6 201310, 300107. Note the different space groups and compositions reported for Boulangerite 7 68663. This natural sample contains Se and Bi. 8 41273. The increased Wyckoff count is the result of an Sb atom being displaced from its ideal position onto two nearby sites. This could be a problem for positionally disordered structures. 9 37441. The formula as given in not electroneutral. 10 38838. 11 35640, 35640, 300106. 12 200601. This composition is not electroneutral 13 100295. 14 74441. Pearson symbol given as aI100 in ICSD 15 300109. Pearson symbol given as mI92 in ICSD 16 20171. Wrong assignment of space group in this structure determination, but it is a subgroup of SG # 12. It is a space group not commonly found and therefore suspect. 17 23569. 18 61191. Zinkenite assigned different compositions and site occupancies 19 30781. Pearson symbol given as hP71 in ICSD 20 142, 8168, 23661, 41849. 21 60818. Pearson symbol given as mC99 in ICSD may correspond to actual cell contents 22 15236, 22176, 26751, 30779. 41929. 23 82871. Probably incorrect space group 24 85302. Probably incorrect space group Can you please review this proposal and circulate your comments to the group. I wish you all the very best for 2003. 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: AW: further proposal
- Next by Date: phase identifiers
- Prev by thread: Michael Berndt is dead (fwd)
- Next by thread: AW: further proposal
- Index(es):