4.6 Article

Shape-Selection of Thermodynamically Stabilized Colloidal Pd and Pt Nanoparticles Controlled via Support Effects

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 119, 期 52, 页码 29178-29185

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b09980

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [NSF-CHEM-1213182, NSF-DMR-1207065]
  2. Cluster of Excellence RESOLV at the Ruhr-University Bochum - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [EXC 1069]
  3. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF54]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Chemistry [1213182] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Materials Research
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1207065] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colloidal chemistry, in combination with nanoparticle (NP)/support epitaxial interactions is used here to synthesize shape-selected and thermodynamically stable metallic NPs over a broad range of NP sizes. The morphology of three-dimensional palladium and platinum NPs supported on TiO2(110) was investigated using scanning tunneling microscopy. Well-defined Pd and Pt NPs were synthesized via inverse micelle encapsulation. The initially spherical NPs were found to become faceted and form an epitaxial relationship with the support after high-temperature annealing (e.g., 1100 degrees C). Shape selection was achieved for almost all Pd NPs, namely, a truncated octahedron shape with (111) top and interfacial facets. The Pt NPs were however found to adopt a variety of shapes. The epitaxial relationship of the NPs with the support was evidenced by the alignment of the cluster's edges with TiO2(110)-[001] atomic rows and was found to be responsible for the shape control. The ability of synthesizing thermally stable shape-selected metal NPs demonstrated here is expected to be of relevance for applications in the field of catalysis, since the activity and selectivity of NP catalysts has been shown to strongly depend on the NP shape.

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

4.6
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