4.6 Article

Solid support flame synthesis of 1-D and 3-D tungsten-oxide nanostructures

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
Volume 33, Issue -, Pages 1899-1908

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2010.06.122

Keywords

Nanorods; Tungsten-oxide nanostructures; Counter-flow flame; Combustion; Synthesis

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CTS-0854433, CTS-0854006]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0854006] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper we report the growth of 1-D and 3-D tungsten-oxide nanostructures on tungsten wire probes inserted in an opposed-flow oxy-fuel flame. The probe diameter and oxygen content in the oxidizer were varied to study their influence on the growth of tungsten-oxide nanostructures. The introduction of a 1-mm diameter W probe into the flame environment with an oxidizer composition of 50% O-2 + 50% N-2, resulted in the formation of 1-D nanorods on the upper surface of the probe. The formation of triangular, rectangular, square, and cylindrical 3-D channels with completely hollow or semi-hollow morphology was achieved by reducing the probe diameter to 0.5 mm. Whereas, the increase of the O-2 content to 100% and the employment of a 1-mm probe resulted in the growth of ribbon-like micron-sized structures. The lattice spacing of similar to 0.38 nm measured for the 1-D W-oxides closely matches a monoclinic WO3 structure. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis revealed that the larger 3-D structures also consist of WO3 confirming that the chemical composition of the structures remains the same while varying the probe and flame parameters. The proposed growth mechanism states that the 3-D WO3 structures are formed through the lateral coalescence of 1-D W-oxide nanorods. (C) 2010 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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