4.8 Article

Lattice Strain Measurement of Core@Shell Electrocatalysts with 4D Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy Nanobeam Electron Diffraction

Journal

ACS CATALYSIS
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages 5529-5541

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.0c00224

Keywords

4D-STEM; strain engineering; electron microscopy; electrocatalysts; nanocatalysts; core@shell

Funding

  1. ORNL's Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program
  2. U.S. DOE BES Award [DE-SC0018961]
  3. Office of Science of the U.S. DOE [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0018961] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Strain engineering enables the direct modification of atomic bonding and is currently an active area of research aimed at improving electrocatalytic activity. However, directly measuring the lattice strain of individual catalyst nanoparticles is challenging, especially at the scale of a single unit cell. Here, we quantitatively map the strain present in rhodium@platinum (core@shell) nanocube electrocatalysts using conventional aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) and the recently developed technique of 4D-STEM nanobeam electron diffraction. We demonstrate that 4D-STEM combined with data preconditioning allows for quantitative lattice strain mapping with subpicometer precision and without the influence of scan distortions. When combined with multivariate curve resolution, 4D-STEM allows us to distinguish the nanocube core from the shell and to quantify the unit cell size as a function of distance from the core-shell interface. Our results demonstrate that 4D-STEM has significant precision and accuracy advantages in strain metrology of catalyst materials compared to aberration-corrected STEM imaging and is beneficial for extracting information about the evolution of strain in catalyst nanoparticles.

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