4.7 Article

Combined Theoretical and in Situ Scattering Strategies for Optimized Discovery and Recovery of High-Pressure Phases: A Case Study of the GaN-Nb2O5 System

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 55, 期 7, 页码 3384-3392

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5b02791

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMR-1231586]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  3. COMPRES, the Consortium for Materials Properties Research in Earth Sciences, under NSF [EAR 10-43050]
  4. Mineral Physics Institute, Stony Brook University
  5. Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, at the Spallation Neutron Source, Oak Ridge National Laboratory [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  6. UT Battelle
  7. Division Of Materials Research
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1231586] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The application of pressure in solid-state synthesis provides a route for the creation of new and exciting materials. However, the onerous nature of high-pressure techniques limits their utility in materials discovery. The systematic search for novel oxynitrides-semiconductors for photocatalytic overall water splitting-is a representative case where quench high-pressure synthesis is useful and necessary in order to obtain target compounds. We utilize state of the art crystal structure prediction theory (USPEX) and in situ synchrotron-based X-ray scattering to speed up the discovery and optimization of novel compounds using high-pressure synthesis. Using this approach, two novel oxynitride phases were discovered in the GaN-Nb2O5 system. The (Nb2O5)(0.84):(NbO2)(0.32):(GaN)(0.82) rutile structured phase was formed at 1 GPa and 900 degrees C and gradually transformed to a alpha-PbO2-related structure above 2.8 GPa and 1000 degrees C. The low-pressure rutile type phase was found to have a direct optical band gap of 0.84 eV and an indirect gap of 0.51 eV.

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