- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Competing Magnetic Anisotropy and Domain-Wall Density for Optimizing Magnetization-Induced Water-Oxidation Enhancement

Anke Yu1,*, Durgesh Kumar2,*, Zizhao Gong3, Leonhard Tannesia1,4, Hasibur Rahaman2, Pengfei Song1, Tianze Wu1, Ramu Maddu2, Pinkesh Kumar Mishra2 et al.

Xiao Renshaw Wang2,5, S. N. Piramanayagam2,†, and Zhichuan J. Xu1,6,‡

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: prem@ntu.edu.sg
  • ‡Contact author: xuzc@ntu.edu.sg
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 108001 – Published 11 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bdr5-bg1j

Abstract

The application of a magnetic field has emerged as an effective method for studying the spin-related effects in the oxygen evolution reaction (OER). However, the presence of spin-unrelated effects under a magnetic field also contributes to the observed OER increment, complicating the identification of spin-related enhancement. This is primarily associated with the intrinsic limitation of the conventional magnetic catalysts that require the continuous application of an external magnetic field to maintain the magnetization. Here, we have developed magnetron-sputtered Co/PtCo multilayer catalysts with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, enabling a stable magnetization state without continuous magnetic fields. The magnetic anisotropy of the multilayers is controlled through the number of repetitions of Co/PtCo bilayers. As the bilayer number increases from 2 to 25, the domain size at the demagnetized state gradually reduces to the nanometer scale due to the enhanced magnetostatic energy. Upon premagnetization with out-of-plane magnetic fields, the pure spin-enhanced OER is numerically correlated to the change in domain wall ratios, where the global non-spin-related enhancement is effectively excluded. Such spin-enhanced OER is found to be favored by magnetic anisotropy due to the higher magnetic stability to maintain the magnetization state. This Letter provides a new strategy for achieving stable spin-related OER enhancement by magnetic anisotropy, advancing magnetic-field-free spin electrocatalysts to optimize OER performance.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (59)

  1. M. T. M. Koper, J. Electroanal. Chem. 660, 254 (2011).
  2. M. T. M. Koper, Chem. Sci. 4, 2710 (2013).
  3. J. Gracia, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 20451 (2017).
  4. J. Gracia, J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 9967 (2019).
  5. F. A. Garcés-Pineda, M. Blasco-Ahicart, D. Nieto-Castro, N. López, and J. R. Galán-Mascarós, Nat. Energy 4, 519 (2019).
  6. X. Ren et al., Nat. Commun. 12, 2608 (2021).
  7. T. Sun et al., Nat. Nanotechnol. 18, 763 (2023).
  8. E. van der Minne et al., Appl. Phys. Rev. 11, 011420 (2024).
  9. X. Ren, T. Wu, Z. Gong, L. Pan, J. Meng, H. Yang, F. B. Dagbjartsdottir, A. Fisher, H.-J. Gao, and Z. J. Xu, Nat. Commun. 14, 2482 (2023).
  10. T. Wu et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121, e2318652121 (2024).
  11. T. Wu and Z. J. Xu, Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 30, 100804 (2021).
  12. S. Bhatti, R. Sbiaa, A. Hirohata, H. Ohno, S. Fukami, and S. N. Piramanayagam, Mater. Today 20, 530 (2017).
  13. S. Ma, Q. Fu, J. Han, T. Yao, X. Wang, Z. Zhang, P. Xu, and B. Song, Adv. Funct. Mater. 34, 2316544 (2024).
  14. S. Luo, K. Elouarzaki, and Z. J. Xu, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 61, e202203564 (2022).
  15. D. Kumar et al., Phys. Rep. 958, 1 (2022).
  16. S. N. Piramanayagam, J. Appl. Phys. 102, 011301 (2007).
  17. R. Sbiaa, H. Meng, and S. N. Piramanayagam, Phys. Status Solidi RRL 5, 413 (2011).
  18. F. J. den Broeder, D. Kuiper, A. P. van de Mosselaer, and W. Hoving, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2769 (1988).
  19. Q. Huang, S. Xie, J. Hao, Z. Ding, C. Zhang, H. Sheng, and J. Zhao, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 62, e202300469 (2023).
  20. S. T. Lim, M. Tran, J. W. Chenchen, J. F. Ying, and G. Han, J. Appl. Phys. 117, 17A731 (2015).
  21. M. Arora, R. Hübner, D. Suess, B. Heinrich, and E. Girt, Phys. Rev. B 96, 024401 (2017).
  22. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/bdr5-bg1j for a complete discussion of methods, characterization results, simulation results, and electrochemical analysis, which includes Refs. [23–28].
  23. Z. Chen, C. X. Kronawitter, Y.-W. Yeh, X. Yang, P. Zhao, N. Yao, and B. E. Koel, J. Mater. Chem. A 5, 842 (2017).
  24. W. Eberhardt, P. Fayet, D. M. Cox, Z. Fu, A. Kaldor, R. Sherwood, and D. Sondericker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 780 (1990).
  25. J. J. Joos, P. Bassirian, P. Gypens, J. Mulkers, K. Litzius, B. Van Waeyenberge, and J. Leliaert, J. Appl. Phys. 134, 171101 (2023).
  26. Y. Tong, P. Chen, T. Zhou, K. Xu, W. Chu, C. Wu, and Y. Xie, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 56, 7121 (2017).
  27. A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia-Sanchez, and B. Van Waeyenberge, AIP Adv. 4, 107133 (2014).
  28. C. Wei, S. Sun, D. Mandler, X. Wang, S. Z. Qiao, and Z. J. Xu, Chem. Soc. Rev. 48, 2518 (2019).
  29. J. Ge, X. Ren, R. R. Chen, Y. Sun, T. Wu, S. J. H. Ong, and Z. J. Xu, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 62, e202301721 (2023).
  30. J. Ge, R. R. Chen, X. Ren, J. Liu, S. J. H. Ong, and Z. J. Xu, Adv. Mater. 33, e2101091 (2021).
  31. T. Wu et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121, e2318652121 (2024).
  32. Y.-H. Fang and Z.-P. Liu, ACS Catal. 4, 4364 (2014).
  33. M. J. Craig, G. Coulter, E. Dolan, J. Soriano-Lopez, E. Mates-Torres, W. Schmitt, and M. Garcia-Melchor, Nat. Commun. 10, 4993 (2019).
  34. Y. B. Zel’dovich, A. L. Buchachenko, and E. L. Frankevich, Phys. Usp. 31, 385 (1988).
  35. C. Luan et al., Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 62, e202305982 (2023).
  36. C. Luan, M. Corva, U. Hagemann, H. Wang, M. Heidelmann, K. Tschulik, and T. Li, ACS Catal. 13, 1400 (2023).
  37. T. Wu et al., Nat. Commun. 12, 3634 (2021).
  38. M. Lu, Y. Du, S. Yan, T. Yu, and Z. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 258001 (2024).
  39. A. Yu, D. Kumar, Z. Gong, L. Tannesia, H. Rahaman, P. Song, T. Wu, R. Maddu, P. K. Mishra, X. R. Wang, S. N. Piramanayagam, and Z. J. Xu, Zenodo, 2026, 10.5281/zenodo.18180979.
  40. T. Reier, M. Oezaslan, and P. Strasser, ACS Catal. 2, 1765 (2012).
  41. S. McVitie et al., Sci. Rep. 8, 5703 (2018).
  42. P. Chowdhury, P. D. Kulkarni, M. Krishnan, H. C. Barshilia, A. Sagdeo, S. K. Rai, G. S. Lodha, and D. V. Sridhara Rao, J. Appl. Phys. 112, 023912 (2012).
  43. S. Kaneko, R. Myochi, S. Takahashi, N. Todoroki, T. Wadayama, and T. Tanabe, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 5360 (2017).
  44. A. S. Aricò, A. K. Shukla, H. Kim, S. Park, M. Min, and V. Antonucci, Appl. Surf. Sci. 172, 33 (2001).
  45. Y. Duan et al., Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 60, 7418 (2021).
  46. M. C. Biesinger, B. P. Payne, A. P. Grosvenor, L. W. M. Lau, A. R. Gerson, and R. S. C. Smart, Appl. Surf. Sci. 257, 2717 (2011).
  47. C. W. Scheeren, G. Machado, S. R. Teixeira, J. Morais, J. B. Domingos, and J. Dupont, J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 13011 (2006).
  48. P. F. Carcia, J. Appl. Phys. 63, 5066 (1988).
  49. C. J. Lin, G. L. Gorman, C. H. Lee, R. F. C. Farrow, E. E. Marinero, H. V. Do, H. Notarys, and C. J. Chien, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 93, 194 (1991).
  50. J. W. Knepper and F. Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 71, 224403 (2005).
  51. R. Sbiaa, Z. Bilin, M. Ranjbar, H. K. Tan, S. J. Wong, S. N. Piramanayagam, and T. C. Chong, J. Appl. Phys. 107, 103901 (2010).
  52. V. Grolier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3023 (1993).
  53. J. Chatterjee, T. Tahmasebi, S. Mertens, G. S. Kar, T. Min, and J. D. Boeck, IEEE Trans. Magn. 50, 1 (2014), https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6971467.
  54. P. J. H. Bloemen and W. J. M. de Jonge, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 116, L1 (1992).
  55. F. J. A. den Broeder, W. Hoving, and P. J. H. Bloemen, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 93, 562 (1991).
  56. M. T. Johnson, R. Jungblut, P. J. Kelly, and F. J. A. den Broeder, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 148, 118 (1995).
  57. K. Janicka, J. D. Burton, and E. Y. Tsymbal, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 113921 (2007).
  58. C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 70, 965 (1946).
  59. M. T. Johnson, P. J. H. Bloemen, F. J. A. d. Broeder, and J. J. d. Vries, Rep. Prog. Phys. 59, 1409 (1996).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 108001– Published 11 March, 2026
  • Received 22 May 2025
  • Accepted 7 January 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation