4.6 Article

Stress in titania nanoparticles: an atomistic study

Journal

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 16, Issue 20, Pages 9441-9447

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3cp54357a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EPSRC under the Molecular Modelling and Materials Science Industrial Doctorate Centre for developing methodology for stress simulations in nanoparticles
  2. US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering [KC020105-FWP12152]
  3. DOE
  4. Battelle [DE-AC05-76RL01830]
  5. EPSRC [EP/I001514/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [1064640, EP/I001514/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stress engineering is becoming an increasingly important method for controlling electronic, optical, and magnetic properties of nanostructures, although the concept of stress is poorly defined at the nanoscale. We outline a procedure for computing bulk and surface stress in nanoparticles using atomistic simulation. The method is applicable to ionic and non-ionic materials alike and may be extended to other nanostructures. We apply it to spherical anatase nanoparticles ranging from 2 to 6 nm in diameter and obtain a surface stress of 0.89 N m(-1), in agreement with experimental measurements. Based on the extent that stress inhomogeneities at the surface are transmitted into the bulk, two characteristic length-scales are identified: below 3 nm bulk and surface regions cannot be defined and the available analytic theories for stress are not applicable, and above about 5 nm the stress becomes well-described by the theoretical Young-Laplace equation. The effect of a net surface charge on the bulk stress is also investigated. It is found that moderate surface charges can induce significant bulk stresses, on the order of 100 MPa, in nanoparticles within this size range.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available