4.8 Review

Analytical separation techniques: toward achieving atomic precision in nanomaterials science

期刊

NANOSCALE
卷 14, 期 44, 页码 16415-16426

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2nr04595h

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Geneva
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [200020_19223]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The properties of nanoscale matter are highly dependent on size and shape, requiring atomic precision synthesis and separation to achieve the envisioned idea of 'maneuvering things atom by atom' by Richard Feynman. Analytical separation techniques have played a key role in understanding the size- and shape-dependent properties of nanomaterials, contributing tremendously to the progression of nanomaterials science. Limitations, challenges, and future perspectives of these techniques are also discussed in the context of nanomaterials research.
The size- and shape-dependence of the properties are the most characteristic features of nanoscale matter. In many types of nanomaterials, there is a size regime wherein every atom counts. In order to fully realize the idea of 'maneuvering things atom by atom' envisioned by Richard Feynman, synthesis and separation of nanoscale matter with atomic precision are essential. It is therefore not surprising that analytical separation techniques have contributed tremendously toward understanding the size- as well as shape-dependent properties of nanomaterials. Fascinating properties of nanomaterials would not have been explored without the use of these techniques. Here we discuss the pivotal role of analytical separation techniques in the progress of nanomaterials science. We begin with a brief overview of some of the key analytical separation techniques that are of tremendous importance in nanomaterials research. Then we describe how each of these techniques has contributed to the advancements in nanomaterials science taking some of the nanosystems as examples. We discuss the limitations and challenges of these techniques and future perspectives.

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