4.8 Article

Revealing inconsistencies in X-ray width methods for nanomaterials

Journal

NANOSCALE
Volume 11, Issue 46, Pages 22456-22466

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9nr08268a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. United States (US) Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Department of Materials Science and Engineering
  2. US DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) [DE-NA0003525]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since the landmark development of the Scherrer method a century ago, multiple generations of width methods for X-ray diffraction originated to non-invasively and rapidly characterize the property-controlling sizes of nanoparticles, nanowires, and nanocrystalline materials. However, the predictive power of this approach suffers from inconsistencies among numerous methods and from misinterpretations of the results. Therefore, we systematically evaluated twenty-two width methods on a representative nanomaterial subjected to thermal and mechanical loads. To bypass experimental complications and enable a 1 : 1 comparison between ground truths and the results of width methods, we produced virtual X-ray diffractograms from atomistic simulations. These simulations realistically captured the trends that we observed in experimental synchrotron diffraction. To comprehensively survey the width methods and to guide future investigations, we introduced a consistent, descriptive nomenclature. Alarmingly, our results demonstrated that popular width methods, especially the Williamson-Hall methods, can produce dramatically incorrect trends. We also showed that the simple Scherrer methods and the rare Energy methods can well characterize unloaded and loaded states, respectively. Overall, this work improved the utility of X-ray diffraction in experimentally evaluating a variety of nanomaterials by guiding the selection and interpretation of width methods.

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