4.7 Article

Epitaxial Growth of Au@Ni Core-Shell Nanocrystals Prepared Using a Two-Step Reduction Method

期刊

CRYSTAL GROWTH & DESIGN
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 1995-2005

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/cg200199b

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT) [22310060]
  2. MEXT
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22310060] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Au@Ni core-shell nanocrystals were prepared using a two-step reduction method. First, mixtures of octahedral, triangular and hexagonal platelike, decahedral, and icosahedral Au core seeds were prepared by reducing HAuCl4 center dot 4H(2)O in ethylene glycol (EG) using microwave (MW) heating in the presence of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) as a polymer surfactant. Then, Ni shells were overgrown on Au core seeds by reducing Ni(NO3)(2)center dot 6H(2)O in EG with NaOH and PVP using oil bath heating. Resultant crystal structures were characterized using transmission electron microscopic (TEM), high-resolution TEM, TEM-energy dispersed X-ray spectroscopic (EDS), selected area electron diffraction (SAED), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements. Because a very large mismatch (13.6%) exists in lattice constants between Au (0.4079 nm) and Ni (0.3524 nm), the epitaxial growth of Ni shells over Au cores was expected to be difficult. Nevertheless, about 40 monolayers of Ni{111} shells were grown epitaidally on flat planes and sharp corners of Au{111} cores after heating reagent solution at 175 degrees C for 2 h. The SAED patterns showed Ni layers parallel to Au layers. This result is contrasted with our recent result for Au@Cu with a smaller lattice mismatch between Au and Cu (11.4%). In the case of Au@Cu, although the epitaxial growth of Cu{111} shells over Au core was observed, the growth rate on sharp corners was slower than that on flat {111} facets. Our results and reported data show that the lattice mismatch is not a significant factor for the crystal growth of Au@Ni on sharp corners.

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

4.7
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