4.7 Article

Exploring Ce3+/Ce4+ cation ordering in reduced ceria nanoparticles using interionic-potential and density-functional calculations

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 131, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.3195063

关键词

cerium compounds; density functional theory; localised states; nanoparticles

资金

  1. Generalitat de Catalunya for a Beatriu de Pinus
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion
  3. MICINN [FIS2008-02238, HA2006-0102]
  4. Era-Chemistry [CTQ2007-30547-E/BQU]
  5. Generalitat de Catalunya [2009SGR1041]
  6. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The performance of atomistic calculations using interionic potentials has been examined in detail with respect to the structures and energetic stabilities of ten configurational isomers (i.e., distinct Ce3+/Ce4+ cationic orderings) of a low energy octahedral ceria nanoparticle Ce19O32. The outcome of these calculations is compared with the results of corresponding density-functional (DF) calculations employing local and gradient corrected functionals with an additional corrective onsite Coulombic interaction applied to the f-electrons (i.e., LDA+U and GGA+U, respectively). Strikingly similar relative energy ordering of the isomers and atomic scale structural trends (e.g., cation-cation distances) are obtained in both the DF and interionic-potential calculations. The surprisingly good agreement between the DF electronic structure calculations and the relatively simple classical potentials is not found to be due to a single dominant interaction type but is due to a sensitive balance between long range electrostatics and local bonding contributions to the energy. Considering the relatively high computational cost and technical difficulty involved in obtaining charge-localized electronic solutions for reduced ceria using DF calculations, the use of interionic potentials for rapid and reliable preselection of the most stable Ce3+/Ce4+ cationic orderings is of considerable benefit.

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

4.7
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