4.6 Article

On the Two-Step Mechanism for Synthesis of Transition-Metal Nanoparticles

Journal

LANGMUIR
Volume 30, Issue 42, Pages 12703-12711

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la503199m

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The two-step particle synthesis mechanism, also known as the Finke-Watzky (1997) mechanism, has emerged as a significant development in the field of nanoparticle synthesis. It explains a characteristic feature of the synthesis of transition metal nanoparticles, an induction period in precursor concentration followed by its rapid sigmoidal decrease. The classical LaMer theory (1950) of particle formation fails to capture this behavior. The two-step mechanism considers slow continuous nucleation and autocatalytic growth of particles directly from precursor as its two kinetic steps. In the present work, we test the two-step mechanism rigorously using population balance models. We find that it explains precursor consumption very well, but fails to explain particle synthesis. The effect of continued nucleation on particle synthesis is not suppressed sufficiently by the rapid autocatalytic growth of particles. The nucleation continues to increase breadth of size distributions to unexpectedly large values as compared to those observed experimentally. A number of variations of the original mechanism with additional reaction steps are investigated next. The simulations show that continued nucleation from the beginning of the synthesis leads to formation of highly polydisperse particles in all of the tested cases. A short nucleation window, realized with delayed onset of nucleation and its suppression soon after in one of the variations, appears as one way to explain all of the known experimental observations. The present investigations clearly establish the need to revisit the two-step particle synthesis mechanism.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available