transfer possible, up to above 0.32 electrons (16i), while the effect on the Ru-induced lowering of the O-vacancy formation energy is only very limited (Figure ). As a result, all of these data points lie above the red line reflecting the linear correlation between charge transfer from the support to the Ru nanorod upon O-vacancy generation and the Ru-induced lowering of the Ovacancy formation energy deduced in Figure . However, the O-vacancy induced charge transfer cannot be easily correlated with the distance to the closest Ru atom (Figure ). As an example, the charge transfer upon O-vacancy formation at the 13i site is significantly larger than that upon O-vacancy formation on the 17i site (Figure and), despite the larger distance to the closest Ru atom. This supports our earlier conclusion that the correlation between charge transfer upon O-vacancy formation and Ru-O distance is more qualitative, with significant charge transfer and energy effects only for distances about 2 Å, while at larger distances the O-vacancy stabilization becomes significantly smaller and more dominated by local effects (see section 3.1.1). Such effects may include, e.g., structural contributions as discussed before, which are generally more pronounced than those from vacancies underneath the Ru nanorod (Table ). For instance, they are higher for the VO(13i) and VO(16i) vacancies (marked by a red square), in agreement with our suggestion that the less pronounced Ruinduced lowering of the O-vacancy formation energy is at least partly due to structural factors.