4.8 Article

Atomistic Description of Electron Beam Damage in Nitrogen-Doped Graphene and Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 6, 期 10, 页码 8837-8846

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/nn303944f

关键词

graphene; SWCNT; nitrogen doping; DFT; TEM; EELS; irradiation; knock-on damage

资金

  1. Finnish Foundation for Technology Promotion
  2. CNB-E project of the Aalto MIDE program
  3. LiBaCAM project of TEKES
  4. Helsinki University Funds
  5. Academy of Finland
  6. CSC Ltd.
  7. DFG (German Research Foundation)
  8. Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts (MWK) of Baden-Wuerttemberg in the frame of the SALVE
  9. EC [266391]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By combining ab initio simulations with state-of-the-art electron microscopy and electron energy loss spectroscopy, we study the mechanism of electron beam damage in nitrogen-doped graphene and carbon nanotubes. Our results show that the incorporation of nitrogen atoms results in noticeable knock-on damage in these structures already at an acceleration voltage of 80 kV, at which essentially no damage is created in pristine structures at corresponding doses. Contrary to an early estimate predicting rapid destruction via sputtering of the nitrogen atoms, in the case of substitutional doping, damage is initiated by displacement of carbon atoms neighboring the nitrogen dopant, leading to the conversion of substitutional dopant sites into pyridinic ones. Although such events are relatively rare at 80 kV, they become significant at higher voltages typically used in electron energy loss spectroscopy studies. Correspondingly, we measured an energy loss spectrum time series at 100 kV that provides direct evidence for such conversions in nitrogen-doped single-walled carbon nanotubes, in excellent agreement with our theoretical prediction. Besides providing an improved understanding of the irradiation stability of these structures, we show that structural changes cannot be neglected in their characterization employing high-energy electrons.

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