4.8 Article

Shape Alloys of Nanorods and Nanospheres from Self-Assembly

Journal

NANO LETTERS
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages 4980-4988

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/nl403149u

Keywords

Nanoparticles; Monte Carlo simulation; binary nanocrystal superlattice; electron microscopy; lamellar phase; demixing

Funding

  1. Office of Naval Research Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative [N00014-10-1-0942]
  2. U.S. Department of Defense [N00244-09-1-0062]
  3. Materials Research Science and Engineering Center program of the National Science Foundation (NSF) [DMR-1120901]
  4. Richard Perry University Professorship
  5. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Science and Engineering [DE-SC0002158]
  6. IBM Ph.D. Fellowship Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mixtures of anisotropic nanocrystals promise a great diversity of superlattices and phase behaviors beyond those of single-component systems. However, obtaining a colloidal shape alloy in which two different shapes are thermodynamically coassembled into a crystalline superlattice has remained a challenge. Here we present a joint experimental computational investigation of two geometrically ubiquitous nanocrystalline building blocks-nanorods and nanospheres-that overcome their natural entropic tendency toward macroscopic phase separation and coassemble into three intriguing pluses over centimeter scales, including an AB(2)-type binary superlattice. Monte Carlo simulations reveal that, although this shape alloy is entropically stable at high packing fraction, demixing is favored at experimental densities. Simulations with short-ranged attractive interactions demonstrate that the alloy is stabilized by interactions induced by ligand stabilizers and/or depletion effects. An asymmetry in the relative interaction strength between rods and spheres improves the robustness of the self-assembly process.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available