Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 521–545 | Cite as

High-throughput experiments facilitate materials innovation: A review

  • YiHao Liu
  • ZiHeng Hu
  • ZhiGuang Suo
  • LianZhe Hu
  • LingYan FengEmail author
  • XiuQing Gong
  • Yi Liu
  • JinCang Zhang


Since the Material Genome Initiative (MGI) was proposed, high-throughput based technology has been widely employed in various fields of materials science. As a theoretical guide, material informatics has been introduced based on machine learning and data mining and high-throughput computation has been employed for large scale search, narrowing down the scope of the experiment trials. High-throughput materials experiments including synthesis, processing, and characterization technologies have become valuable research tools to pin down the prediction experimentally, enabling the discovery-to-deployment of advances materials more efficiently at a fraction of cost. This review aims to summarize the recent advances of high-throughput materials experiments and introduce briefly the development of materials design based on material genome concept. By selecting representative and classic works in the past years, various high-throughput preparation methods are introduced for different types of material gradient libraries, including metallic, inorganic materials, and polymers. Furthermore, high-throughput characterization approaches are comprehensively discussed, including both their advantages and limitations. Specifically, we focus on high-throughput mass spectrometry to analyze its current status and challenges in the application of catalysts screening.


Material Genome Initiative (MGI) high-throughput material development materials synthesis materials characterization 


  1. 1.
    Holdren J P. Materials Genome Initiative for Global Competitiveness. Report. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jain A, Ong S P, Hautier G, et al. Commentary: The materials project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL Mater, 2013, 1: 011002Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Green M L, Choi C L, Hattrick-Simpers J R, et al. Fulfilling the promise of the materials genome initiative with high-throughput experimental methodologies. Appl Phys Rev, 2017, 4: 011105Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang H, Wang H, Ding H, et al. Progress in high-throughput materials synthesis and characterization. Sci Technol Rev, 2015, 33: 31–49Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kennedy K, Stefansky T, Davy G, et al. Rapid method for determining ternary-alloy phase diagrams. J Appl Phys, 1965, 36: 3808–3810Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hanak J J. The “multiple-sample concept” in materials research: Synthesis, compositional analysis and testing of entire multicomponent systems. J Mater Sci, 1970, 5: 964–971Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thomas R, Moulijn J A, De Beer V H J, et al. Structure/metathesis activity relations of silica supported molybdenum and tungsten oxide. J Mol Catal, 1980, 8: 161–174Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xiang X D, Sun X, Briceño G, et al. A combinatorial approach to materials discovery. Science, 1995, 268: 1738–1740Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Danielson E, Golden J H, McFarland E W, et al. A combinatorial approach to the discovery and optimization of luminescent materials. Nature, 1997, 389: 944–948Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merrifield R B. Solid phase peptide synthesis. I. The synthesis of a tetrapeptide. J Am Chem Soc, 1963, 85: 2149–2154Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orschel M, Klein J, Schmidt H W, et al. Detection of reaction selectivity on catalyst libraries by spatially resolved mass spectrometry. Angew Chem Int Ed, 1999, 38: 2791–2794Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Senkan S, Krantz K, Ozturk S, et al. High-throughput testing of heterogeneous catalyst libraries using array microreactors and mass spectrometry. Angew Chem Int Ed, 1999, 38: 2794–2799Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jandeleit B, Schaefer D J, Powers T S, et al. Combinatorial materials science and catalysis. Angew Chem Int Ed, 1999, 38: 2494–2532Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Senkan S. Combinatorial heterogeneous catalysis—A new path in an old field. Angew Chem Int Ed, 2001, 40: 312–329Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Senkan S M. High-throughput screening of solid-state catalyst libraries. Nature, 1998, 394: 350–353Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang J, Yoo Y, Gao C, et al. Identification of a blue photoluminescent composite material from a combinatorial library. Science, 1998, 279: 1712–1714Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun X D, Wang K A, Yoo Y, et al. Solution-phase synthesis of luminescent materials libraries. Adv Mater, 1997, 9: 1046–1049Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao J C, Jackson M R, Peluso L A, et al. A diffusion multiple approach for the accelerated design of structural materials. MRS Bull, 2002, 27: 324–329Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McDowell D L, Olson G B. Concurrent design of hierarchical materials and structures. Sci Model Simul, 2008, 15: 207–240Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Potyrailo R A, Mirsky V M. Combinatorial and high-throughput development of sensing materials: The first 10 years. Chem Rev, 2008, 108: 770–813Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Jong M, Chen W, Angsten T, et al. Charting the complete elastic properties of inorganic crystalline compounds. Sci Data, 2015, 2: 150009Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Jong M, Chen W, Geerlings H, et al. A database to enable discovery and design of piezoelectric materials. Sci Data, 2015, 2: 150053Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ong S P, Wang L, Kang B, et al. Li-Fe-P-O2 phase diagram from first principles calculations. Chem Mater, 2008, 20: 1798–1807Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ong S P, Richards W D, Jain A, et al. Python materials genomics (pymatgen): A robust, open-source python library for materials analysis. Comput Mater Sci, 2013, 68: 314–319Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jain A, Ong S P, Chen W, et al. FireWorks: A dynamic workflow system designed for high-throughput applications. Concurrency Computat-Pract Exper, 2015, 27: 5037–5059Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhou F, Cococcioni M, Marianetti C A, et al. First-principles prediction of redox potentials in transition-metal compounds with LDA +U. Phys Rev B, 2004, 70: 235121Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang L, Maxisch T, Ceder G. A first-principles approach to studying the thermal stability of oxide cathode materials. Chem Mater, 2007, 19: 543–552Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ong S P, Jain A, Hautier G, et al. Thermal stabilities of delithiated olivine MPO4 (M=Fe, Mn) cathodes investigated using first principles calculations. Electrochem Commun, 2010, 12: 427–430Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adams S, Rao R P. High power lithium ion battery materials by computational design. Phys Status Solidi A, 2011, 208: 1746–1753Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hautier G, Fischer C, Ehrlacher V, et al. Data mined ionic substitutions for the discovery of new compounds. Inorg Chem, 2011, 50: 656–663Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Qu X, Jain A, Rajput N N, et al. The Electrolyte Genome project: A big data approach in battery materials discovery. Comput Mater Sci, 2015, 103: 56–67Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Persson K A, Waldwick B, Lazic P, et al. Prediction of solid-aqueous equilibria: Scheme to combine first-principles calculations of solids with experimental aqueous states. Phys Rev B, 2012, 85: 235438Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh A K, Zhou L, Shinde A, et al. Electrochemical stability of metastable materials. Chem Mater, 2017, 29: 10159–10167Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ceder G. Opportunities and challenges for first-principles materials design and applications to Li battery materials. MRS Bull, 2010, 35: 693–701Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hautier G, Jain A, Ong S P, et al. Phosphates as lithium-ion battery cathodes: An evaluation based on high-throughput ab initio calculations. Chem Mater, 2011, 23: 3495–3508Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kamaya N, Homma K, Yamakawa Y, et al. A lithium superionic conductor. Nat Mater, 2011, 10: 682–686Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seino Y, Ota T, Takada K, et al. A sulphide lithium super ion conductor is superior to liquid ion conductors for use in rechargeable batteries. Energy Environ Sci, 2014, 7: 627–631Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang Y, Richards W D, Bo S H, et al. Computational prediction and evaluation of solid-state sodium superionic conductors Na7P3X11 (X =O, S, Se). Chem Mater, 2017, 29: 7475–7482Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Greeley J, Jaramillo T F, Bonde J, et al. Computational highthroughput screening of electrocatalytic materials for hydrogen evolution. Nat Mater, 2006, 5: 909–913Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lin L C, Berger A H, Martin R L, et al. In silico screening of carboncapture materials. Nat Mater, 2012, 11: 633–641Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Armiento R, Kozinsky B, Fornari M, et al. Screening for high-performance piezoelectrics using high-throughput density functional theory. Phys Rev B, 2011, 84: 014103Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang S, Wang Z, Setyawan W, et al. Assessing the thermoelectric properties of sintered compounds via high-throughput ab-initio calculations. Phys Rev X, 2011, 1: 021012Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Curtarolo S, Setyawan W, Wang S, et al. Aflowlib.Org: A distributed materials properties repository from high-throughput ab initio calculations. Comput Mater Sci, 2012, 58: 227–235Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xi L, Pan S, Li X, et al. Discovery of high-performance thermoelectric chalcogenides through reliable high-throughput material screening. J Am Chem Soc, 2018, 140: 10785–10793Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Raccuglia P, Elbert K C, Adler P D F, et al. Machine-learningassisted materials discovery using failed experiments. Nature, 2016, 533: 73–76Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa R A, et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 2017, 542: 115–118Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kusne A G, Keller D, Anderson A, et al. High-throughput determination of structural phase diagram and constituent phases using grendel. Nanotechnology, 2015, 26: 444002Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Liu Y, Zhao T, Ju W, et al. Materials discovery and design using machine learning. J Materiomics, 2017, 3: 159–177Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gajewski J, Sadowski T. Sensitivity analysis of crack propagation in pavement bituminous layered structures using a hybrid system integrating artificial neural networks and finite element method. Comput Mater Sci, 2014, 82: 114–117Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liu Y, Zhao T, Yang G, et al. The onset temperature (T g) of AsxSe1-x glasses transition prediction: A comparison of topological and regression analysis methods. Comput Mater Sci, 2017, 140: 315–321Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shi S Q, Gao J, Liu Y, et al. Multi-scale computation methods: Their applications in lithium-ion battery research and development. Chin Phys B, 2016, 25: 018212Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    LeSar R. Materials informatics: An emerging technology for materials development. Statistical Anal Data Min, 2009, 1: 372–374MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kalidindi S R, De Graef M. Materials data science: Current status and future outlook. Annu Rev Mater Res, 2015, 45: 171–193Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Meredig B, Agrawal A, Kirklin S, et al. Combinatorial screening for new materials in unconstrained composition space with machine learning. Phys Rev B, 2014, 89: 094104Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hattrick-Simpers J R, Gregoire J M, Kusne A G. Perspective: Composition-structure-property mapping in high-throughput experiments: Turning data into knowledge. APL Mater, 2016, 4: 053211Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pilania G, Wang C, Jiang X, et al. Accelerating materials property predictions using machine learning. Sci Rep, 2013, 3: 2810Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rar A, Frafjord J J, Fowlkes J D, et al. PVD synthesis and highthroughput property characterization of Ni-Fe-Cr alloy libraries. Meas Sci Technol, 2005, 16: 46–53Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Müller C M, Sologubenko A S, Gerstl S S A, et al. Nanoscale Cu/Ta multilayer deposition by co-sputtering on a rotating substrate. Empirical model and experiment. Surf Coatings Tech, 2016, 302: 284–292Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bahrami A, Álvarez J P, Depablos-Rivera O, et al. Compositional and tribo-mechanical characterization of Ti-Ta coatings prepared by confocal dual magnetron Co-sputtering. Adv Eng Mater, 2018, 20: 1700687Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang X, Rogalla D, Ludwig A. Influences of W content on the phase transformation properties and the associated stress change in thin film substrate combinations studied by fabrication and characterization of thin film V1–xWxO2 materials libraries. ACS Comb Sci, 2018, 20: 229–236Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Voith M, Mardare A I, Hassel A W. Synthesis and characterization of Al-Mg-Zn thin film alloys co-deposited from vapour phase. Phys Status Solidi A, 2013, 210: 1000–1005Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mao S S. High throughput growth and characterization of thin film materials. J Cryst Growth, 2013, 379: 123–130Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Löbel R, Thienhaus S, Savan A, et al. Combinatorial fabrication and high-throughput characterization of a Ti-Ni-Cu shape memory thin film composition spread. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2008, 481-482: 151–155Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Thienhaus S, Naujoks D, Pfetzing-Micklich J, et al. Rapid identification of areas of interest in thin film materials libraries by combining electrical, optical, X-ray diffraction, and mechanical highthroughput measurements: A case study for the system Ni-Al. ACS Comb Sci, 2014, 16: 686–694Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Motemani Y, Khare C, Savan A, et al. Nanostructured Ti-Ta thin films synthesized by combinatorial glancing angle sputter deposition. Nanotechnology, 2016, 27: 495604Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Xiang X D, Wang G, Zhang X, et al. Individualized pixel synthesis and characterization of combinatorial materials chips. Engineering, 2015, 1: 225–233Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Xing H, Zhao B, Wang Y, et al. Rapid construction of Fe-Co-Ni composition-phase map by combinatorial materials chip approach. ACS Comb Sci, 2018, 20: 127–131Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Maier W F, Stöwe K, Sieg S. Combinatorial and high-throughput materials science. Angew Chem Int Ed, 2007, 46: 6016–6067Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Decker P, Naujoks D, Langenkämper D, et al. High-throughput structural and functional characterization of the thin film materials system Ni-Co-Al. ACS Comb Sci, 2017, 19: 618–624Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Cooper J S, McGinn P J. Combinatorial screening of thin film electrocatalysts for a direct methanol fuel cell anode. J Power Sources, 2006, 163: 330–338Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cooper J S, McGinn P J. Combinatorial screening of fuel cell cathode catalyst compositions. Appl Surf Sci, 2007, 254: 662–668Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cooper J S, Jeon M K, McGinn P J. Combinatorial screening of ternary Pt-Ni-Cr catalysts for methanol electro-oxidation. Electrochem Commun, 2008, 10: 1545–1547Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jeon M K, Cooper J S, McGinn P J. Methanol electro-oxidation by a ternary Pt-Ru-Cu catalyst identified by a combinatorial approach. J Power Sources, 2008, 185: 913–916Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zhang Y, McGinn P J. Combinatorial screening for methanol oxidation catalysts in alloys of Pt, Cr, Co and V. J Power Sources, 2012, 206: 29–36Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    McGinn P J. Combinatorial electrochemistry—Processing and characterization for materials discovery. Mater Discovery, 2015, 1: 38–53Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ocylok S, Weisheit A, Kelbassa I. Functionally graded multi-layers by laser cladding for increased wear and corrosion protection. Phys Procedia, 2010, 5: 359–367Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Knoll H, Ocylok S, Weisheit A, et al. Combinatorial alloy design by laser additive manufacturing. steel Res int, 2016, 88: 1600416Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Herzog D, Seyda V, Wycisk E, et al. Additive manufacturing of metals. Acta Mater, 2016, 117: 371–392Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hebert R J. Viewpoint: Metallurgical aspects of powder bed metal additive manufacturing. J Mater Sci, 2016, 51: 1165–1175Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hofmann D C, Roberts S, Otis R, et al. Developing gradient metal alloys through radial deposition additive manufacturing. Sci Rep, 2014, 4: 5357–5365Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Zhao J C, Jackson M R, Peluso L A. Mapping of the Nb-Ti-Si phase diagram using diffusion multiples. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2004, 372: 21–27Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Zhao J C, Xu Y, Hartmann U. Measurement of an iso-curie temperature line of a Co-Cr-Mo solid solution by magnetic force microscopy imaging on a diffusion multiple. Adv Eng Mater, 2013, 15: 321–324Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Zhao J C, Peluso L A, Jackson M R, et al. Phase diagram of the Nb-Al-Si ternary system. J Alloys Compd, 2003, 360: 183–188Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Zhao J C, Jackson M R, Peluso L A. Determination of the Nb-Cr-Si phase diagram using diffusion multiples. Acta Mater, 2003, 51: 6395–6405Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zhao J C. Reliability of the diffusion-multiple approach for phase diagram mapping. J Mater Sci, 2004, 39: 3913–3925Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zhao J C, Jackson M R, Peluso L A. Evaluation of phase relations in the Nb-Cr-Al system at 1000°C using a diffusion-multiple approach. J Phase Equil Diff, 2004, 25: 152–159Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Shastry V V, Divya V D, Azeem M A, et al. Combining indentation and diffusion couple techniques for combinatorial discovery of high temperature shape memory alloys. Acta Mater, 2013, 61: 5735–5742Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Zhou L, Giri A, Cho K, et al. Mechanical anomaly observed in Ni-Mn-Ga alloys by nanoindentation. Acta Mater, 2016, 118: 54–63Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Huang S, Zhang X, Jiang Y, et al. Experimental investigation of Ti-Nb-Co ternary system at 1000°C. Mater Des, 2017, 115: 170–178Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Zhao J. Combinatorial approaches as effective tools in the study of phase diagrams and composition-structure-property relationships. Prog Mater Sci, 2006, 51: 557–631Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zhao J C, Zheng X, Cahill D G. High-throughput diffusion multiples. Mater Today, 2005, 8: 28–37Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Milenkovic S, Rahimian M, Sabirov I. A novel high-throughput technique for establishing the solidification-microstructure relationships. Metall Materi Trans B, 2013, 45: 482–488Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Weaver J S, Khosravani A, Castillo A, et al. High throughput exploration of process-property linkages in Al-6061 using instrumented spherical microindentation and microstructurally graded samples. Integr Mater Manuf Innov, 2016, 5: 1–20Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Chen P C, Liu X, Hedrick J L, et al. Polyelemental nanoparticle libraries. Science, 2016, 352: 1565–1569Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Yao Y, Huang Z, Xie P, et al. Carbothermal shock synthesis of highentropy-alloy nanoparticles. Science, 2018, 359: 1489–1494Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Fenton J L, Steimle B C, Schaak R E. Tunable intraparticle frameworks for creating complex heterostructured nanoparticle libraries. Science, 2018, 360: 513–517Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Akinc A, Lynn D M, Anderson D G, et al. Parallel synthesis and biophysical characterization of a degradable polymer library for gene delivery. J Am Chem Soc, 2003, 125: 5316–5323Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hao J, Kos P, Zhou K, et al. Rapid synthesis of a lipocationic polyester library via ring-opening polymerization of functional valerolactones for efficacious sirna delivery. J Am Chem Soc, 2015, 137: 9206–9209Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Zha Z, Hu Y, Mukerabigwi J F, et al. Thiolactone chemistry-based combinatorial methodology to construct multifunctional polymers for efficacious gene delivery. Bioconjugate Chem, 2018, 29: 23–28Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Anderson D G, Peng W, Akinc A, et al. A polymer library approach to suicide gene therapy for cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2004, 101: 16028–16033Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Anderson D, Tweedie C, Hossain N, et al. A combinatorial library of photocrosslinkable and degradable materials. Adv Mater, 2006, 18: 2614–2618Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Xue H, Zhao Y, Wu H, et al. Multicomponent combinatorial polymerization via the biginelli reaction. J Am Chem Soc, 2016, 138: 8690–8693Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Cosson S, Danial M, Saint-Amans J R, et al. Accelerated combinatorial high throughput star polymer synthesis via a rapid one-pot sequential aqueous raft (rosa-raft) polymerization scheme. Macromol Rapid Commun, 2017, 38: 1600780Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Potyrailo R A, Wroczynski R J, Pickett J E, et al. High-throughput fabrication, performance testing, and characterization of one-dimensional libraries of polymeric compositions. Macromol Rapid Commun, 2003, 24: 123–130Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Gallant F M, Bruck H A, Kota A K. Fabrication of particle-reinforced polymers with continuous gradient architectures using twin screw extrusion process. J Composite Mater, 2004, 38: 1873–1893Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Carson Meredith J, Karim A, Amis E J. Combinatorial methods for investigations in polymer materials science. MRS Bull, 2002, 27: 330–335Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Stafford C M, Roskov K E, Epps Iii T H, et al. Generating thickness gradients of thin polymer films via flow coating. Rev Sci Instruments, 2006, 77: 023908Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Meredith J C, Smith A P, Karim A, et al. Combinatorial materials science for polymer thin-film dewetting. Macromolecules, 2000, 33: 9747–9756Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Kelly J Y, Albert J N L, Howarter J A, et al. Investigation of thermally responsive block copolymer thin film morphologies using gradients. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2010, 2: 3241–3248Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Ding Y, Qi H J, Alvine K J, et al. Stability and surface topography evolution in nanoimprinted polymer patterns under a thermal gradient. Macromolecules, 2010, 43: 8191–8201Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Smith A P, Sehgal A, Douglas J F, et al. Combinatorial mapping of surface energy effects on diblock copolymer thin film ordering. Macromol Rapid Commun, 2003, 24: 131–135Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Lawrence N T, Kehoe J M, Hoffman D B, et al. Combinatorial mapping of substrate step edge effects on diblock copolymer thin film morphology and orientation. Macromol Rapid Commun, 2010, 31: 1003–1009Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Briceno G, Chang H, Sun X, et al. A class of cobalt oxide magnetoresistance materials discovered with combinatorial synthesis. Science, 1995, 270: 273–275Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Sun X D, Gao C, Wang J, et al. Identification and optimization of advanced phosphors using combinatorial libraries. Appl Phys Lett, 1997, 70: 3353–3355Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Chang H, Gao C, Takeuchi I, et al. Combinatorial synthesis and high throughput evaluation of ferroelectric/dielectric thin-film libraries for microwave applications. Appl Phys Lett, 1998, 72: 2185–2187Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Mao S S. High throughput combinatorial screening of semiconductor materials. Appl Phys A, 2011, 105: 283–288Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kim K W, Kim T S, Jeon M K, et al. Ferroelectric properties of Bi4-xCexTi3O12(0<x<4) thin film array fabricated from Bi2O3/CeO2/TiO2 multilayers using multitarget sputtering. Appl Phys Lett, 2008, 92: 052911Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Gremaud R, Broedersz C, Borsa D, et al. Hydrogenography: An optical combinatorial method to find new light-weight hydrogenstorage materials. Adv Mater, 2007, 19: 2813–2817Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Dam B, Gremaud R, Broedersz C, et al. Combinatorial thin film methods for the search of new lightweight metal hydrides. Scripta Mater, 2007, 56: 853–858Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Barcelo S, Mao S S. High throughput optical characterization of alloy hydrogenation. Int J Hydrogen Energy, 2010, 35: 7228–7231Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Ding S, Liu Y, Li Y, et al. Combinatorial development of bulk metallic glasses. Nat Mater, 2014, 13: 494–500Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Ding S, Gregoire J, Vlassak J J, et al. Solidification of Au-Cu-Si alloys investigated by a combinatorial approach. J Appl Phys, 2012, 111: 114901Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Liu Y, Padmanabhan J, Cheung B, et al. Combinatorial development of antibacterial Zr-Cu-Al-Ag thin film metallic glasses. Sci Rep, 2016, 6: 26950Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Li Y, Jensen K E, Liu Y, et al. Combinatorial strategies for synthesis and characterization of alloy microstructures over large compositional ranges. ACS Comb Sci, 2016, 18: 630–637Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Etiemble A, Der Loughian C, Apreutesei M, et al. Innovative Zr-Cu-Ag thin film metallic glass deposed by magnetron PVD sputtering for antibacterial applications. J Alloys Compd, 2017, 707: 155–161Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Frost S, Guérin S, Hayden B E, et al. High-Throughput synthesis and characterization of Eu doped BaxSr2–xSiO4 thin film phosphors. ACS Comb Sci, 2018, 20: 451–460Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Perkins J D, del Cueto J A, Alleman J L, et al. Combinatorial studies of Zn-Al-O and Zn-Sn-O transparent conducting oxide thin films. Thin Solid Films, 2002, 411: 152–160Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Schenck P K, Klamo J L, Bassim N D, et al. Combinatorial study of the crystallinity boundary in the HfO2-TiO2-Y2O3 system using pulsed laser deposition library thin films. Thin Solid Films, 2008, 517: 691–694Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Olk C H, Tibbetts G G, Simon D, et al. Combinatorial preparation and infrared screening of hydrogen sorbing metal alloys. J Appl Phys, 2003, 94: 720–725Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Olk C H. Combinatorial approach to material synthesis and screening of hydrogen storage alloys. Meas Sci Technol, 2005, 16: 14–20Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Otani M, Lowhorn N D, Schenck P K, et al. A high-throughput thermoelectric power-factor screening tool for rapid construction of thermoelectric property diagrams. Appl Phys Lett, 2007, 91: 132102Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Watanabe M, Kita T, Fukumura T, et al. High-throughput screening for combinatorial thin-film library of thermoelectric materials. J Comb Chem, 2008, 10: 175–178Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Otani M, Itaka K, Wong-Ng W, et al. Development of a highthroughput thermoelectric screening tool for combinatorial thin film libraries. Appl Surf Sci, 2007, 254: 765–767Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Christen H M, Ohkubo I, Rouleau C M, et al. A laser-deposition approach to compositional-spread discovery of materials on conventional sample sizes. Meas Sci Technol, 2005, 16: 21–31Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Christen H M, Silliman S D, Harshavardhan K S. Epitaxial superlattices grown by a PLD-based continuous compositional-spread technique. Appl Surf Sci, 2002, 189: 216–221Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Christen H M, Silliman S D, Harshavardhan K S. Continuous compositional-spread technique based on pulsed-laser deposition and applied to the growth of epitaxial films. Rev Sci Instrum, 2001, 72: 2673–2678Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    O’Neill S A, Clark R J H, Parkin I P, et al. Anatase thin films on glass from the chemical vapor deposition of titanium (iv) chloride and ethyl acetate. Chem Mater, 2003, 15: 46–50Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Guo Y, Zhang X, Han G. Investigation of structure and properties of N-doped TiO2 thin films grown by APCVD. Mater Sci Eng-B, 2006, 135: 83–87Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    O’Neill S, Parkin I P, Clark J H, et al. Photocatalytically active γ-WO3 films from atmospheric pressure CVD of WOCl4 with ethyl acetate or ethanol. Chem Vap Deposition, 2004, 10: 136–141Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Xia B, Chen F, Campbell S A, et al. Combinatorial CVD of zirconium, hafnium, and tin oxide mixtures for applications as high-k materials. Chem Vap Deposition, 2004, 10: 195–200Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Smith R C, Hoilien N, Roberts J, et al. Combinatorial chemical vapor deposition of metal dioxides using anhydrous metal nitrates. Chem Mater, 2002, 14: 474–476Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Smith R C, Hoilien N, Chien J, et al. Combinatorial chemical vapor deposition. Achieving compositional spreads of titanium, tin, and hafnium oxides by balancing reactor fluid dynamics and depositions kinetics. ChemInform, 2003, 34: 292–298Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Kafizas A, Parkin I P. The combinatorial atmospheric pressure chemical vapour deposition (CAPCVD) of a gradating N-doped mixed phase titania thin film. J Mater Chem, 2010, 20: 2157Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Kafizas A, Hyett G, Parkin I P. Combinatorial atmospheric pressure chemical vapour deposition (CAPCVD) of a mixed vanadium oxide and vanadium oxynitride thin film. J Mater Chem, 2009, 19: 1399–1408Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Kafizas A, Dunnill C W, Parkin I P. Combinatorial atmospheric pressure chemical vapour deposition (CAPCVD) of niobium doped anatase; effect of niobium on the conductivity and photocatalytic activity. J Mater Chem, 2010, 20: 8336–8349Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Zhou J, Lin J, Huang X, et al. A library of atomically thin metal chalcogenides. Nature, 2018, 556: 355–359Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Chen L, Bao J, Gao C, et al. Combinatorial synthesis of insoluble oxide library from ultrafine/nano particle suspension using a dropon-demand inkjet delivery system. J Comb Chem, 2004, 6: 699–702Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Chan T S, Kang C C, Liu R S, et al. Combinatorial study of the optimization of Y2O3:Bi, Eu red phosphors. J Comb Chem, 2007, 9: 343–346Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Okamura S, Takeuchi R, Shiosaki T. Fabrication of ferroelectric Pb (Zr,Ti)O3 thin films with various Zr/Ti ratios by ink-jet printing. Jpn J Appl Phys, 2002, 41: 6714–6717Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Bharathan J, Yang Y. Polymer electroluminescent devices processed by inkjet printing: I. Polymer light-emitting logo. Appl Phys Lett, 1998, 72: 2660–2662Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Chen L, Chen K J, Lin C C, et al. Combinatorial approach to the development of a single mass YVO4:Bi3+, Eu3+ phosphor with red and green dual colors for high color rendering white light-emitting diodes. J Comb Chem, 2010, 12: 587–594Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Wang J, Mohebi M M, Evans J R G. Two methods to generate multiple compositions in combinatorial ink-jet printing of ceramics. Macromol Rapid Commun, 2005, 26: 304–309Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Wang J, Evans J R G. Library preparation using an aspirating-dispensing ink-jet printer for combinatorial studies in ceramics. J Mater Res, 2005, 20: 2733–2740Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Chen L, Luo A, Zhang Y, et al. Optimization of the single-phased white phosphor of Li2SrSiO4:Eu2+, Ce3+ for light-emitting diodes by using the combinatorial approach assisted with the taguchi method. ACS Comb Sci, 2012, 14: 636–644Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Haber J A, Guevarra D, Jung S, et al. Discovery of new oxygen evolution reaction electrocatalysts by combinatorial investigation of the Ni-La-Co-Ce oxide composition space. ChemElectroChem, 2014, 1: 1613–1617Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Shinde A, Jones R J R, Guevarra D, et al. High-throughput screening for acid-stable oxygen evolution electrocatalysts in the (Mn-Co-Ta-Sb)Ox composition space. Electrocatalysis, 2015, 6: 229–236Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Liu X, Shen Y, Yang R, et al. Inkjet printing assisted synthesis of multicomponent mesoporous metal oxides for ultrafast catalyst exploration. Nano Lett, 2012, 12: 5733–5739Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Pullar R C. Combinatorial bulk ceramic magnetoelectric composite libraries of strontium hexaferrite and barium titanate. ACS Comb Sci, 2012, 14: 425–433Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    García-Cañadas J, Adkins N J E, McCain S, et al. Accelerated discovery of thermoelectric materials: Combinatorial facility and highthroughput measurement of thermoelectric power factor. ACS Comb Sci, 2016, 18: 314–319Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Guram A, Hagemeyer A, Lugmair C, et al. Application of high throughput screening to heterogeneous liquid and gas phase oxidation catalysis. Adv Synthesis Catal, 2004, 346: 215–230Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Bergh S, Guan S, Hagemeyer A, et al. Gas phase oxidation of ethane to acetic acid using high-throughput screening in a massively parallel microfluidic reactor system. Appl Catal A-General, 2003, 254: 67–76Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Moon H, Jeong S J, Lee Y T, et al. Preparation of a water-based Al/ Fe/Mo catalyst using a microfluidic system. Chem Lett, 2010, 39: 814–815Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Zhou J, Zeng J, Grant J, et al. On-chip screening of experimental conditions for the synthesis of noble-metal nanostructures with different morphologies. Small, 2011, 7: 3308–3316Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Carbonell C, Stylianou K C, Hernando J, et al. Femtolitre chemistry assisted by microfluidic pen lithography. Nat Commun, 2013, 4: 2173Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Jin S H, Jeong H H, Lee B, et al. A programmable microfluidic static droplet array for droplet generation, transportation, fusion, storage, and retrieval. Lab Chip, 2015, 15: 3677–3686Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Suga S, Okajima M, Fujiwara K, et al. “Cation flow” method: A new approach to conventional and combinatorial organic syntheses using electrochemical microflow systems. J Am Chem Soc, 2001, 123: 7941–7942Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Suga S, Okajima M, Fujiwara K, et al. Electrochemical combinatorial organic syntheses using microflow systems. QSAR Comb Sci, 2005, 24: 728–741Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Nagaki A, Togai M, Suga S, et al. Control of extremely fast competitive consecutive reactions using micromixing. Selective friedelcrafts aminoalkylation. J Am Chem Soc, 2005, 127: 11666–11675Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Saito K, Ueoka K, Matsumoto K, et al. Indirect cation-flow method: Flash generation of alkoxycarbenium ions and studies on the stability of glycosyl cations. Angew Chem Int Ed, 2011, 50: 5153–5156Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Yudin A K, Siu T. Combinatorial electrochemistry. Curr Opin Chem Biol, 2001, 5: 269–272Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Siu T, Li W, Yudin A K. Parallel electrosynthesis of 1,2-diamines. J Comb Chem, 2001, 3: 554–558Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Siu T, Li W, Yudin A K. Parallel electrosynthesis of a-alkoxycarbamates, α-alkoxyamides, and α-alkoxysulfonamides using the spatially addressable electrolysis platform (saep). J Comb Chem, 2000, 2: 545–549Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Gütz C, Klöckner B, Waldvogel S R. Electrochemical screening for electroorganic synthesis. Org Process Res Dev, 2016, 20: 26–32Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Edinger C, Grimaudo V, Broekmann P, et al. Stabilizing lead cathodes with diammonium salt additives in the deoxygenation of aromatic amides. ChemElectroChem, 2014, 1: 1018–1022Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Edinger C, Kulisch J, Waldvogel S R. Stereoselective cathodic synthesis of 8-substituted (1R,3R,4S)-menthylamines. Beilstein J Org Chem, 2015, 11: 294–301Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Edinger C, Waldvogel S R. Electrochemical deoxygenation of aromatic amides and sulfoxides. Eur J Org Chem, 2014, 2014: 5144–5148Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Elsler B, Schollmeyer D, Dyballa K M, et al. Metal- and reagent-free highly selective anodic cross-coupling reaction of phenols. Angew Chem Int Ed, 2014, 114Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Elsler B, Wiebe A, Schollmeyer D, et al. Source of selectivity in oxidative cross-coupling of aryls by solvent effect of 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropan-2-ol. Chem Eur J, 2015, 21: 12321–12325Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Schulz L, Enders M, Elsler B, et al. Reagent-and metal-free anodic C-C cross-coupling of aniline derivatives. Angew Chem Int Ed, 2017, 56: 4877–4881Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Hartmer M F, Waldvogel S R. Electroorganic synthesis of nitriles via a halogen-free domino oxidation-reduction sequence. Chem Commun, 2015, 51: 16346–16348Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Gütz C, Selt M, Bänziger M, et al. A novel cathode material for cathodic dehalogenation of 1,1-dibromo cyclopropane derivatives. Chem Eur J, 2015, 21: 13878–13882Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Gao C, Bao J, Luo Z, et al. Recent progresses in the combinatorial materials science. Acta Phys Chim Sin, 2006, 22: 899–912Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Naujoks D, Richert J, Decker P, et al. Phase formation and oxidation behavior at 500°C in a Ni-Co-Al thin-film materials library. ACS Comb Sci, 2016, 18: 575–582Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Buenconsejo P J S, Siegel A, Savan A, et al. Preparation of 24 ternary thin film materials libraries on a single substrate in one experiment for irreversible high-throughput studies. ACS Comb Sci, 2012, 14: 25–30Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Buenconsejo P J S, Ludwig A. New Au-Cu-Al thin film shape memory alloys with tunable functional properties and high thermal stability. Acta Mater, 2015, 85: 378–386Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Sliozberg K, Schäfer D, Erichsen T, et al. High-throughput screening of thin-film semiconductor material libraries I: System development and case study for Ti-W-O. ChemSusChem, 2015, 8: 1270–1278Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Meyer R, Sliozberg K, Khare C, et al. High-throughput screening of thin-film semiconductor material libraries II: Characterization of Fe-W-O libraries. ChemSusChem, 2015, 8: 1279–1285Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Payne M A, Miller J B, Gellman A J. High-throughput characterization of early oxidation across AlxFeyNi1-x-y composition space. Corrosion Sci, 2015, 91: 46–57Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Isaacs E D, Marcus M, Aeppli G, et al. Synchrotron X-ray microbeam diagnostics of combinatorial synthesis. Appl Phys Lett, 1998, 73: 1820–1822Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Stoewe K, Maier W F, Weidenhof B. High-throughput materials discovery by inkjet-printing of composition spread libraries. MRS Proc, 2012, 1425Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Ohtani M, Fukumura T, Kawasaki M, et al. Concurrent X-ray diffractometer for high throughput structural diagnosis of epitaxial thin films. Appl Phys Lett, 2001, 79: 3594–3596Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Liu J, Liu Y, Gong P, et al. Combinatorial exploration of color in gold-based alloys. Gold Bull, 2015, 48: 111–118Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Luo Z, Geng B, Bao J, et al. High-throughput X-ray characterization system for combinatorial materials studies. Rev Sci Instrum, 2005, 76: 095105Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    Wong-Ng W, Otani M, Levin I, et al. A phase relation study of Ba-YCu-O coated-conductor films using the combinatorial approach. Appl Phys Lett, 2009, 94: 171910Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    Green M L, Schenck P K, Chang K S, et al. “Higher-?” dielectrics for advanced silicon microelectronic devices: A combinatorial research study. MicroElectron Eng, 2009, 86: 1662–1664Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    Wang T, Wang L, Wang Q, et al. Pronounced plasticity caused by phase separation and ß-relaxation synergistically in Zr-Cu-Al-Mo bulk metallic glasses. Sci Rep, 2017, 7: 1238Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Gregoire J M, McCluskey P J, Dale D, et al. Combining combinatorial nanocalorimetry and X-ray diffraction techniques to study the effects of composition and quench rate on Au-Cu-Si metallic glasses. Scripta Mater, 2012, 66: 178–181Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    McCluskey P J, Xiao K, Gregoire J M, et al. Application of in-situ nano-scanning calorimetry and X-ray diffraction to characterize Ni-Ti-Hf high-temperature shape memory alloys. ThermoChim Acta, 2015, 603: 53–62Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    Gregoire J M, Van Campen D G, Miller C E, et al. High-throughput synchrotron X-ray diffraction for combinatorial phase mapping. J Synchrotron Rad, 2014, 21: 1262–1268Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    Pathak S, Shaffer J, Kalidindi S. Determination of an effective zeropoint and extraction of indentation stress-strain curves without the continuous stiffness measurement signal. Scripta Mater, 2009, 60: 439–442Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    Kalidindi S R, Pathak S. Determination of the effective zero-point and the extraction of spherical nanoindentation stress-strain curves. Acta Mater, 2008, 56: 3523–3532Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    Zarnetta R, Kneip S, Somsen C, et al. High-throughput characterization of mechanical properties of Ti-Ni-Cu shape memory thin films at elevated temperature. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2011, 528: 6552–6557Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    Weaver J S, Priddy M W, McDowell D L, et al. On capturing the grain-scale elastic and plastic anisotropy of alpha-Ti with spherical nanoindentation and electron back-scattered diffraction. Acta Mater, 2016, 117: 23–34Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    Khosravani A, Cecen A, Kalidindi S R. Development of high throughput assays for establishing process-structure-property linkages in multiphase polycrystalline metals: Application to dualphase steels. Acta Mater, 2017, 123: 55–69Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Smith A P, Douglas J F, Meredith J C, et al. Combinatorial study of surface pattern formation in thin block copolymer films. Phys Rev Lett, 2001, 87: 015503Google Scholar
  206. 206.
    Smith A P, Douglas J F, Meredith J C, et al. High-throughput characterization of pattern formation in symmetric diblock copolymer films. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys, 2001, 39: 2141–2158Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    Smith A P, Douglas J F, Amis E J, et al. Effect of temperature on the morphology and kinetics of surface pattern formation in thin block copolymer films. Langmuir, 2007, 23: 12380–12387Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    Beers K L, Douglas J F, Amis E J, et al. Combinatorial measurements of crystallization growth rate and morphology in thin films of isotactic polystyrene. Langmuir, 2003, 19: 3935–3940Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    Zapata P, Su J, García A J, et al. Quantitative high-throughput screening of osteoblast attachment, spreading, and proliferation on demixed polymer blend micropatterns. Biomacromolecules, 2007, 8: 1907–1917Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    Mok M M, Torkelson J M. Imaging of phase segregation in gradient copolymers: Island and hole surface topography. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys, 2012, 50: 189–197Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    Luo M, Seppala J E, Albert J N L, et al. Manipulating nanoscale morphologies in cylinder-forming poly(styrene-b-isoprene-b-styrene) thin films using film thickness and substrate surface chemistry gradients. Macromolecules, 2013, 46: 1803–1811Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    Shelton C K, Epps III T H. Mapping substrate surface field propagation in block polymer thin films. Macromolecules, 2016, 49: 574–580Google Scholar
  213. 213.
    Johnson P M, Reynolds T B, Stansbury J W, et al. High throughput kinetic analysis of photopolymer conversion using composition and exposure time gradients. Polymer, 2005, 46: 3300–3306Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    Lin-Gibson S, Landis F A, Drzal P L. Combinatorial investigation of the structure-properties characterization of photopolymerized dimethacrylate networks. Biomaterials, 2006, 27: 1711–1717Google Scholar
  215. 215.
    l’Abee R, Li W, Goossens H, et al. Application of FTIR microscopy in combinatorial experimentation on polymer blends. Macromol Symp, 2008, 265: 281–289Google Scholar
  216. 216.
    Vogel B M, Cabral J T, Eidelman N, et al. Parallel synthesis and high throughput dissolution testing of biodegradable polyanhydride copolymers. J Comb Chem, 2005, 7: 921–928Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    Zhang Y, Mallapragada S K, Narasimhan B. A novel high throughput method to investigate polymer dissolution. Macromol Rapid Commun, 2010, 31: 385–390Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    Lauterbach J, Wittmann M, Küppers J. Adsorption of CO at Ni(100) surfaces: A FTIRAS-TDS study. Surf Sci, 1992, 279: 287–296Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    Lauterbach J, Wittmann M, Küppers J. A FTIRAS study of CO adsorbed at Ni(100) surfaces. Berichte der Bunsengesellschaft für physikalische Chem, 1993, 97: 326–328Google Scholar
  220. 220.
    Fanson P T, Stradt M W, Delgass W N, et al. Infrared evidence for the existence of nitrate species on Cu-ZSM5 during isothermal rate oscillations in the decomposition of N2O. Catal Lett, 2001, 77: 15–19Google Scholar
  221. 221.
    Fanson P. FTIR analysis of storage behavior and sulfur tolerance in barium-based NOx storage and reduction (NSR) catalysts. Appl Catal B-Environ, 2003, 46: 393–413Google Scholar
  222. 222.
    Pyrz W, Vijay R, Binz J, et al. Characterization of k-promoted Ru catalysts for ammonia decomposition discovered using highthroughput experimentation. Top Catal, 2008, 50: 180–191Google Scholar
  223. 223.
    Taylor B, Lauterbach J, Delgass W N. Gas-phase epoxidation of propylene over small gold ensembles on ts-1. Appl Catal A-General, 2005, 291: 188–198Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Snively C M, Lauterbach J. Sampling accessories for the highthroughput analysis of combinatorial libraries using spectral imaging. Spectroscopy, 2002, 17: 26–32Google Scholar
  225. 225.
    Sasmaz E, Mingle K, Lauterbach J. High-throughput screening using fourier-transform infrared imaging. Engineering, 2015, 1: 234–242Google Scholar
  226. 226.
    Loskyll J, Stoewe K, Maier W F. Infrared thermography as a highthroughput tool in catalysis research. ACS Comb Sci, 2012, 14: 295–303Google Scholar
  227. 227.
    Holzwarth A, Schmidt H W, Maier W F. Detection of catalytic activity in combinatorial libraries of heterogeneous catalysts by Ir thermography. Angew Chem Int Ed, 1998, 37: 2644–2647Google Scholar
  228. 228.
    Olong N, Stowe K, Maier W. HT-search for alkaline- and noblemetal-free mixed oxide catalysts for soot oxidation. Catal Today, 2008, 137: 110–118Google Scholar
  229. 229.
    Loskyll J, Stoewe K, Maier W F. High-throughput technology for novel SO2 oxidation catalysts. Sci Tech Adv Mater, 2011, 12: 054101Google Scholar
  230. 230.
    Kramer M, Duisberg M, Stowe K, et al. Highly selective co methanation catalysts for the purification of hydrogen-rich gas mixtures. J Catal, 2007, 251: 410–422Google Scholar
  231. 231.
    Domènech-Ferrer R, Rodríguez-Viejo J, González-Silveira M, et al. In situ infrared thermographic screening of compositional spread Mg-Ti thin-film libraries. J Alloys Compd, 2011, 509: 6497–6501Google Scholar
  232. 232.
    Domènech-Ferrer R, Rodríguez-Viejo J, Garcia G. Infrared imaging tool for screening catalyst effect on hydrogen storing thin film libraries. Catal Today, 2011, 159: 144–149Google Scholar
  233. 233.
    Ding J J, Jiu H F, Bao J, et al. Combinatorial study of cofluorescence of rare earth organic complexes doped in the poly(methyl methacrylate) matrix. J Comb Chem, 2005, 7: 69–72Google Scholar
  234. 234.
    Luo Z L, Geng B, Bao J, et al. Parallel solution combustion synthesis for combinatorial materials studies. J Comb Chem, 2005, 7: 942–946Google Scholar
  235. 235.
    Chen L, Fu Y, Zhang G, et al. Optimization of Pr3+, Tb3+, and Sm3+ Co-Doped(Y0.65Gd0.35)BO3:Eu0.05 3+ VUV phosphors through combinatorial approach. J Comb Chem, 2008, 10: 401–404Google Scholar
  236. 236.
    Ding J, Bao J, Sun S, et al. Combinatorial discovery of visible-light driven photocatalysts based on the ABO3-type (A= Y, La, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Dy, Yb, B = Al and In) binary oxides. J Comb Chem, 2009, 11: 523–526Google Scholar
  237. 237.
    Chen L, Chen K J, Hu S F, et al. Combinatorial chemistry approach to searching phosphors for white light-emitting diodes in (Gd-Y-Bi-Eu)VO4 quaternary system. J Mater Chem, 2011, 21: 3677–3685Google Scholar
  238. 238.
    Chen L, Chu C I, Chen K J, et al. An intelligent approach to the discovery of luminescent materials using a combinatorial approach combined with taguchi methodology. Luminescence, 2011, 26: 229–238Google Scholar
  239. 239.
    Su X, Zhang K, Liu Q, et al. Combinatorial optimization of (Lu1-xGdx)3Al5O12:Ce3y yellow phosphors as precursors for ceramic scintillators. ACS Comb Sci, 2011, 13: 79–83Google Scholar
  240. 240.
    Wei Q, Wan J, Liu G, et al. Combinatorial optimization of La, Ce-Co-doped pyrosilicate phosphors as potential scintillator materials. ACS Comb Sci, 2015, 17: 217–223Google Scholar
  241. 241.
    Reddington E, Sapienza A, Gurau B, et al. Combinatorial electrochemistry: A highly parallel, optical screening method for discovery of better electrocatalysts. Science, 1998, 280: 1735–1737Google Scholar
  242. 242.
    Jeon M K, Liu J H, Lee K R, et al. Combinatorial search for quaternary methanol tolerant oxygen electro-reduction catalyst. Fuel Cells, 2010, 1: NAGoogle Scholar
  243. 243.
    Liu J H, Jeon M K, Woo S I. High-throughput screening of binary catalysts for oxygen electroreduction. Appl Surf Sci, 2006, 252: 2580–2587Google Scholar
  244. 244.
    Jin J, Prochaska M, Rochefort D, et al. A high-throughput search for direct methanol fuel cell anode electrocatalysts of type ptxbiypbz. Appl Surf Sci, 2007, 254: 653–661Google Scholar
  245. 245.
    Prochaska M, Jin J, Rochefort D, et al. High throughput screening of electrocatalysts for fuel cell applications. Rev Sci Instrum, 2006, 77: 054104Google Scholar
  246. 246.
    Tague M E, Gregoire J M, Legard A, et al. High throughput thin film Pt-M alloys for fuel electrooxidation: Low concentrations of M (M = Sn, Ta, W, Mo, Ru, Fe, In, Pd, Hf, Zn, Zr, Nb, Sc, Ni, Ti, V, Cr, Rh). J Electrochem Soc, 2012, 159: F880–F887Google Scholar
  247. 247.
    Welsch F G, Stöwe K, Maier W F. Rapid optical screening technology for direct methanol fuel cell (dmfc) anode and related electrocatalysts. Catal Today, 2011, 159: 108–119Google Scholar
  248. 248.
    Welsch F G, Stöwe K, Maier W F. Fluorescence-based high throughput screening for noble metal-free and platinum-poor anode catalysts for the direct methanol fuel cell. ACS Comb Sci, 2011, 13: 518–529Google Scholar
  249. 249.
    Dogan C, Stöwe K, Maier W F. Optical high-throughput screening for activity and electrochemical stability of oxygen reducing electrode catalysts for fuel cell applications. ACS Comb Sci, 2015, 17: 164–175Google Scholar
  250. 250.
    Jeon M K, Lee C H, Park G I, et al. Combinatorial search for oxygen reduction reaction electrocatalysts: A review. J Power Sources, 2012, 216: 400–408Google Scholar
  251. 251.
    Urquhart A, Anderson D, Taylor M, et al. High throughput surface characterisation of a combinatorial material library. Adv Mater, 2007, 19: 2486–2491Google Scholar
  252. 252.
    Schafer D, Mardare C, Savan A, et al. High-throughput characterization of Pt supported on thin film oxide material libraries applied in the oxygen reduction reaction. Anal Chem, 2011, 83: 1916–1923Google Scholar
  253. 253.
    Priyadarshini D, Kondratyuk P, Picard Y N, et al. High-throughput characterization of surface segregation in CuxPd1–x alloys. J Phys Chem C, 2011, 115: 10155–10163Google Scholar
  254. 254.
    Park S H, Choi C H, Koh J K, et al. Combinatorial high-throughput screening for highly active Pd-Ir-Ce based ternary catalysts in electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction. ACS Comb Sci, 2013, 15: 572–579Google Scholar
  255. 255.
    Uchic M D, Dimiduk D M, Florando J N, et al. Sample dimensions influence strength and crystal plasticity. Science, 2004, 305: 986–989Google Scholar
  256. 256.
    Uchic M D, Dimiduk D M. A methodology to investigate size scale effects in crystalline plasticity using uniaxial compression testing. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2005, 400-401: 268–278Google Scholar
  257. 257.
    Zarnetta R, Ehmann M, Savan A, et al. Identification of optimized Ti-Ni-Cu shape memory alloy compositions for high-frequency thin film microactuator applications. Smart Mater Struct, 2010, 19: 065032Google Scholar
  258. 258.
    Suram S K, Fackler S W, Zhou L, et al. Combinatorial discovery of lanthanum-tantalum oxynitride solar light absorbers with dilute nitrogen for solar fuel applications. ACS Comb Sci, 2018, 20: 26–34Google Scholar
  259. 259.
    Ziolkowski P, Wambach M, Ludwig A, et al. Application of highthroughput Seebeck microprobe measurements on thermoelectric Half-Heusler thin film combinatorial material libraries. ACS Comb Sci, 2018, 20: 1–18Google Scholar
  260. 260.
    Taylor S J, Morken J P. Thermographic selection of effective catalysts from an encoded polymer-bound library. Science, 1998, 280: 267–270Google Scholar
  261. 261.
    Urschey J, Weiss P A W, Scheidtmann J, et al. A low cost reactor for high-throughput activity screening of heterogeneous catalysts by mass spectrometry. Solid State Sci, 2003, 5: 909–916Google Scholar
  262. 262.
    Seok Oh K, Do Kyoung Kim K, Maier W F, et al. Discovery of new heterogeneous catalysts for the selective oxidation of propane to acrolein. CCHTS, 2007, 10: 5–12Google Scholar
  263. 263.
    Kim D, Maier W. Combinatorial discovery of new autoreduction catalysts for the CO2 reforming of methane. J Catal, 2006, 238: 142–152Google Scholar
  264. 264.
    Cong P, Doolen R D, Fan Q, et al. High-throughput synthesis and screening of combinatorial heterogeneous catalyst libraries. Angew Chem Int Ed, 1999, 38: 483–488Google Scholar
  265. 265.
    Yaccato K, Carhart R, Hagemeyer A, et al. Competitive CO and CO2 methanation over supported noble metal catalysts in high throughput scanning mass spectrometer. Appl Catal A-General, 2005, 296: 30–48Google Scholar
  266. 266.
    Claus P, Hönicke D, Zech T. Miniaturization of screening devices for the combinatorial development of heterogeneous catalysts. Catal Today, 2001, 67: 319–339Google Scholar
  267. 267.
    Krantz K, Ozturk S, Senkan S. Application of combinatorial catalysis to the selective reduction of no by C3H6. Catal Today, 2000, 62: 281–289Google Scholar
  268. 268.
    Miyazaki T, Ozturk S, Onal I, et al. Selective oxidation of propylene to propylene oxide using combinatorial methodologies. Catal Today, 2003, 81: 473–484Google Scholar
  269. 269.
    Zech T, Claus P, Hönicke D. Miniaturized reactors in combinatorial catalysis and high-throughput experimentation. CHIMIA Int J Chem, 2002, 56: 611–620Google Scholar
  270. 270.
    Zech T, Bohner G, Klein J. High-throughput screening of supported catalysts in massively parallel single-bead microreactors: Workflow aspects related to reactor bonding and catalyst preparation. Catal Today, 2005, 110: 58–67Google Scholar
  271. 271.
    Eckhard K, Schlüter O, Hagen V, et al. Spatially resolved mass spectrometry as a fast semi-quantitative tool for testing heterogeneous catalyst libraries under reducing stagnant-point flow conditions. Appl Catal A-General, 2005, 281: 115–120Google Scholar
  272. 272.
    Li N, Eckhard K, Aßmann J, et al. Scanning mass spectrometry with integrated constant distance positioning. Rev Sci Instrum, 2006, 77: 084102Google Scholar
  273. 273.
    Li N, Assmann J, Schuhmann W, et al. Spatially resolved characterization of catalyst-coated membranes by distance-controlled scanning mass spectrometry utilizing catalytic methanol oxidation as gas-solid probe reaction. Anal Chem, 2007, 79: 5674–5681Google Scholar
  274. 274.
    Nayar A, Liu R, Allen R J, et al. Laser-activated membrane introduction mass spectrometry for high-throughput evaluation of bulk heterogeneous catalysts. Anal Chem, 2002, 74: 1933–1938Google Scholar
  275. 275.
    Roos M, Kielbassa S, Schirling C, et al. Scanning mass spectrometer for quantitative reaction studies on catalytically active microstructures. Rev Sci Instrum, 2007, 78: 084104Google Scholar
  276. 276.
    Roos M, Bansmann J, Zhang D, et al. Product gas evolution above planar microstructured model catalysts—A combined scanning mass spectrometry, Monte Carlo, and Computational Fluid Dynamics study. J Chem Phys, 2010, 133: 094504Google Scholar
  277. 277.
    Richter M. Combinatorial preparation and high-throughput catalytic tests of multi-component denox catalysts. Appl Catal B-Environ, 2002, 36: 261–277Google Scholar
  278. 278.
    Wang H, Liu Z, Shen J. Quantified ms analysis applied to combinatorial heterogeneous catalyst libraries. J Comb Chem, 2003, 5: 802–808Google Scholar
  279. 279.
    Bedenbaugh J E, Kim S, Sasmaz E, et al. High-throughput investigation of catalysts for jp-8 fuel cracking to liquefied petroleum gas. ACS Comb Sci, 2013, 15: 491–497Google Scholar
  280. 280.
    Wang Y, Liu Y, Song S, et al. Accelerating the discovery of insensitive high-energy-density materials by a materials genome approach. Nat Commun, 2018, 9: 2444Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • YiHao Liu
    • 1
  • ZiHeng Hu
    • 1
  • ZhiGuang Suo
    • 1
  • LianZhe Hu
    • 2
  • LingYan Feng
    • 1
    Email author
  • XiuQing Gong
    • 1
  • Yi Liu
    • 1
  • JinCang Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Materials Genome InstituteShanghai UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Chongqing Key Laboratory of Green Synthesis and ApplicationCollege of Chemistry, Chongqing Normal UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations