English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since their introduction in 1929, Pauling’s five rules have been used by scientists from many disciplines to rationalize and predict stable arrangements of atoms and coordination polyhedra in crystalline solids; amorphous materials such as silicate glasses and melts; nanomaterials, poorly crystalline solids; aqueous cation and anion complexes; and sorption complexes at mineral-aqueous solution interfaces. The predictive power of these simple yet powerful rules was challenged recently by  George et al. (2020) , who performed a statistical analysis of the performance of Pauling’s five rules for about 5000 oxide crystal structures. They concluded that only 13% of the oxides satisfy the last four rules simultaneously and that the second rule has the most exceptions. They also found that Pauling’s first rule is satisfied for only 66% of the coordination environments tested and concluded that no simple rule linking ionic radius to coordination environment will be predictive due to the variable quality of univalent radii.

american mineralogist

Pauling’s rules for oxide-based minerals: A re-examination based on quantum mechanical constraints and modern applications of bond-valence theory to Earth materials