4.5 Article

Comparison of reidite formation between zircon bulk and nanoparticles

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpcs.2021.110475

Keywords

High pressure; Phase transition; Zircon; Nanoparticles; Surface energy

Funding

  1. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA20070201]
  2. National Second Expedition [2019QZKK0707]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC 42173029, NSFC 41772034]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study suggests that nanoparticles require a higher critical pressure to initiate the transition to high-pressure phase reidite compared to bulk zircons, but the growth of reidite is similar between nanoparticles and bulk zircons after reaching critical pressures, indicating that the growth of reidite is dependent on the core rather than the surface.
Although modifying high-pressure behavior through the particle-size of a material is well recognized, a clear mechanism, underlying the start and subsequent growth of a high-pressure phase, remains elusive. Here, we investigate the effects of particle-size on the formation of reidite (ZrSiO4, I41/a), a high-pressure phase of zircon (ZrSiO4, I41/amd), by comparing zircon nanoparticles with bulk. This is done by high pressure Raman scattering and synchrotron X-ray diffraction experiments on zircons pressurized in diamond anvil cells and subsequent transmission electron microscopy analysis of quenched samples. As compared to bulk, the larger surface energy of nanoparticles is the cause of a higher critical pressure required to start the transition to reidite. However, after passing the critical pressures, the similar growth trends between nanoparticles and bulk indicate that the reidite growth is dependent on the core, rather than the surface. These results are important to identify craters caused by meteorite impacts using reidite as a high-pressure indicator, as nanoparticles are formed in naturally-occurring, highly radiation-damaged zircon.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available