4.8 Article

Atomic-scale observation of premelting at 2D lattice defects inside oxide crystals

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37977-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors demonstrate that melting inside BaCeO3 crystals is initiated at two-dimensional faults in a layer-by-layer manner below the melting temperature. Using atomic-column-resolved imaging with scanning transmission electron microscopy, the initiation of melting at two-dimensional faults inside the crystals is clarified and layer-by-layer melting at the early stage is identified as a notable finding.
No experimental observations have been reported to clarify how a melting transition proceeds inside a crystal. Here the authors demonstrate that melting is initiated at two-dimensional faults inside BaCeO3 crystals below the melting temperature in a layer-by-layer manner. Since two major criteria for melting were proposed by Lindemann and Born in the early 1900s, many simulations and observations have been carried out to elucidate the premelting phenomena largely at the crystal surfaces and grain boundaries below the bulk melting point. Although dislocations and clusters of vacancies and interstitials were predicted as possible origins to trigger the melting, experimental direct observations demonstrating the correlation of premelting with lattice defects inside a crystal remain elusive. Using atomic-column-resolved imaging with scanning transmission electron microscopy in polycrystalline BaCeO3, here we clarify the initiation of melting at two-dimensional faults inside the crystals below the melting temperature. In particular, melting in a layer-by-layer manner rather than random nucleation at the early stage was identified as a notable finding. Emphasizing the value of direct atomistic observation, our study suggests that lattice defects inside crystals should not be overlooked as preferential nucleation sites for phase transformation including melting.

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