4.4 Article

Crystal lattice tilting in prismatic calcite

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
卷 183, 期 2, 页码 180-190

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2013.06.006

关键词

Biomineral; Mollusca; PIC-mapping; PEEM; Mesocrystal; Nanocrystal; Hardness

资金

  1. NSF [DMR-1105167, EAR-103979]
  2. DOE [DE-FG02-07ER15899, DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  3. Division Of Materials Research
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1105167] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyzed the calcitic prismatic layers in Atrina rigida (Ar), Haliotis iris (Hi), Haliotis laevigata (HL), Haliotis rufescens (Hrf), Mytilus californianus (Mc), Pinctada fucata (Pf), Pinctada margaritifera (Pm) shells, and the aragonitic prismatic layer in the Nautilus pompilius (Np) shell. Dramatic structural differences were observed across species, with 100-mu m wide single-crystalline prisms in Hi, HL and Hrf, 1-mu m wide needle-shaped calcite prisms in Mc, 1-mu m wide spherulitic aragonite prisms in Np, 20-mu m wide single-crystalline calcite prisms in Ar, and 20-mu m wide polycrystalline calcite prisms in Pf and Pm. The calcite prisms in Pf and Pm are subdivided into sub-prismatic domains of orientations, and within each of these domains the calcite crystal lattice tilts gradually over long distances, on the order of 100 mu m, with an angle spread of crystal orientation of 10-20 degrees. Furthermore, prisms in Pf and Pm are harder than in any other calcite prisms analyzed, their nanoparticles are smaller, and the angle spread is strongly correlated with hardness in all shells that form calcitic prismatic layers. One can hypothesize a causal relationship of these correlated parameters: greater angle spread may confer greater hardness and resistance to wear, thus providing Pf and Pm with a structural advantage in their environment. This is the first structure-property relationship thus far hypothesized in mollusk shell prisms. (c) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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