4.8 Article

Control of Electron Beam-Induced Au Nanocrystal Growth Kinetics through Solution Chemistry

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 5314-5320

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01677

关键词

liquid cell TEM; Au nanoclystal growth; radiolysis; electron beam induced growth; nanoprisms; reaction-diffusion model

资金

  1. National Science Foundation under NSF-GOALI [CMMI 1129722, DMR-1310639]
  2. NSF [CBET 1066573]
  3. NSF-NBIC [NSF NSECDMR-08-32802]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1310639] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Materials Research [1310639] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurements of solution-phase crystal growth provide mechanistic information that is helpful in designing and synthesizing nanostructures. Here, we examine the model system of individual Au nanocrystal formation within a defined liquid geometry during electron beam irradiation of gold chloride solution, where radiolytically formed hydrated electrons reduce Au ions to solid Au. By selecting conditions that favor the growth of well-faceted Au nanoprisms, we measure growth rates of individual crystals. The volume of each crystal increases linearly with irradiation time at a rate unaffected by its shape or proximity to neighboring crystals, implying a growth process that is controlled by the arrival of atoms from solution. Furthermore, growth requires a threshold dose rate, suggesting competition between reduction and oxidation processes in the solution. Above this threshold, the growth rate follows a power law with dose rate. To explain the observed dose rate dependence, we demonstrate that a reaction-diffusion model is required that explicitly accounts for the species H+ and Cl-. The model highlights the necessity of considering all species present when interpreting kinetic data obtained from beam-induced processes, and suggest conditions under which growth rates can be controlled with higher precision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据