4.8 Article

Distinguishing faceted oxide nanocrystals with 17O solid-state NMR spectroscopy

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00603-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB934800]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [21573103, 21421004, 21222302, 20903056]
  3. NSFC-Royal Society Joint Program [21661130149, 21111130201]
  4. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-10-0483]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [1124020512]
  6. National Science Fund for Talent Training in Basic Science [J1103310]
  7. Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities [B16017]
  8. Royal Society
  9. Newton Fund
  10. European Research Council
  11. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Facet engineering of oxide nanocrystals represents a powerful method for generating diverse properties for practical and innovative applications. Therefore, it is crucial to determine the nature of the exposed facets of oxides in order to develop the facet/morphology-property relationships and rationally design nanostructures with desired properties. Despite the extensive applications of electron microscopy for visualizing the facet structure of nanocrystals, the volumes sampled by such techniques are very small and may not be representative of the whole sample. Here, we develop a convenient O-17 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) strategy to distinguish oxide nanocrystals exposing different facets. In combination with density functional theory calculations, we show that the oxygen ions on the exposed (001) and (101) facets of anatase titania nanocrystals have distinct O-17 NMR shifts, which are sensitive to surface reconstruction and the nature of the steps on the surface. The results presented here open up methods for characterizing faceted nanocrystalline oxides and related materials.

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