4.8 Article

Synthesis of metal oxide nanoparticles via a robust solvent-deficient method

期刊

NANOSCALE
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 144-156

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4nr04964k

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-FG02-05ER15666]
  2. BYU ORCA program
  3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-FG02-05ER15666] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report an efficient, general methodology for producing high-surface area metal oxide nanomaterials for a vast range of metal oxides, including at least one metal oxide nanomaterial from nearly every transition metal and semi-metal group in the periodic table (groups 3-4 and 6-15) as well as several from the lanthanide group (see Table 1). The method requires only 2-3 simple steps; a hydrated metal salt (usually a nitrate or chloride salt) is ground with bicarbonate (usually NH4HCO3) for 10-30 minutes to form a precursor that is then either untreated or rinsed before being calcined at relatively low temperatures (220-550 degrees C) for 1-3 hours. The method is thus similar to surfactant-free aqueous methods such as co-precipitation but is unique in that no solvents are added. The resulting solvent-deficient environment has interesting and unique consequences, including increased crystallinity of the products over other aqueous methods and a mesoporous nature in the inevitable agglomerates. The products are chemically pure and phase pure with crystallites generally 3-30 nm in average size that aggregate into high surface area, mesoporous agglomerates 50-300 nm in size that would be useful for catalyst and gas sensing applications. The versatility of products and efficiency of the method lend its unique potential for improving the industrial viability of a broad family of useful metal oxide nanomaterials. In this paper, we outline the methodology of the solvent-deficient method using our understanding of its mechanism, and we describe the range and quality of nanomaterials it has produced thus far.

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