Electrochemical Ostwald ripening of colloidal Ag particles on conductive substrates

Nano Letters

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 131-135

  Redmond, Peter L ^a   Hallock, A J ^a   Brus, Louis E ^a  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONDUCTIVE SUBSTRATES; ELECTROCHEMICAL OSTWALD; HIGHLY ORIENTED PYROLYTIC GRAPHITE (HOPG); RIPENING; SILVER NANOPARTICLES;

COLLOIDS; ELECTRODES; NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; SUBSTRATES; TIN COMPOUNDS; WATER; X RAY ANALYSIS;

SILVER;

EID: 12944289527     PISSN: 15306984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/nl048204r     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Porter, J. D.; Robinson, T. O. J. Phys. Chem. 1993, 97(25), 6696-6709.
2. Henglein, A. J. Phys. Chem. 1993, 97(21), 5457-54571.
3. Plieth, W. J. J. Phys. Chem. 1982, 86(16), 3166-3172.
4. Plieth, W. J. Surf. Sci. 1985, 156, 530-535. In this paper eq 6b gives the change in the work function with decreasing size. Unlike eq 1 above for the standard electrode potential, the work function equation has two terms which vary with size. The first is a negative shift dependent upon surface energy as in eq 1. The second term is a charging energy term, which gives a positive shift for smaller sizes. In a vacuum smaller Ag particles would have larger ionization potentials than bulk Ag - the second term dominates numerically. In water, dielectric screening makes the second term negligible with respect to the first. Smaller Ag particles would have lower ionization potentials than bulk Ag. Also note that in Plieth's equation 6b the charging energy term has a numerical factor of 3/8. It is now thought that this factor should be 1/2: see Makov, G.; Nitzan, A.; Brus, L. J. Chem. Phys. 1988, 88, 5076.
5. Plieth, W. J. Surf. Sci. 1985, 156, 530-535. In this paper eq 6b gives the change in the work function with decreasing size. Unlike eq 1 above for the standard electrode potential, the work function equation has two terms which vary with size. The first is a negative shift dependent upon surface energy as in eq 1. The second term is a charging energy term, which gives a positive shift for smaller sizes. In a vacuum smaller Ag particles would have larger ionization potentials than bulk Ag - the second term dominates numerically. In water, dielectric screening makes the second term negligible with respect to the first. Smaller Ag particles would have lower ionization potentials than bulk Ag. Also note that in Plieth's equation 6b the charging energy term has a numerical factor of 3/8. It is now thought that this factor should be 1/2: see Makov, G.; Nitzan, A.; Brus, L. J. Chem. Phys. 1988, 88, 5076.
6. Michaels, A. M.; Nirmal, M.; Brus, L. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121(43), 9932-9939.
7. Nie, S.; Emory, S. R. Seience 1997, 275, 1102-1106.
8. Kneipp, K.; Wang, Y.; Kneipp, J.; Perelman, L. T.; Itzkan, I.; Dasari, R.; Reld, M. S. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 78, 1667.
9. Xu, H. X.; Bjerneld, E. J.; Kali, M.; Borjesson, L. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999, 83, 4357.
10. Weiss, A.; Haran, G. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 12348.
11. Kamat, P. V. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106(32), 7729-7744.
12. Cai, W.; Zhong. H.; Zhang. L. J. Appl. Phys. 1998, 83(3), 1705-1710.
13. Schmidt, M.; Masson, A.; Brechignac, C. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 9/(24), 243401.
14. Jiang, Q.; Liang, L. H.; Zhao, D. S. J. Phys Chem. B 2001, 105(27), 6275-6277.
15. Ng, K. H.; Liu, H.; Penner, R. M. Langmuir 2000, 16(8), 4016-4023.
16. Chaki, N. K.; Sharma, J.; Mandle, A. B.; Mulla, I. S.; Pasricha, R.; Vijayamohanan, K. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2004, 6(6). 1304-1309.
17. Bockris, J. O'M.; Reddy, A. Modern Electrochemistry; Plenum: New York, 1970; p 1267.
18. Alberty, R. A.; Silbey, R. J. Physical Chemistry, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1996; eq 7.44, p 227.
19. Albright, J. G.; Miller, D. G. J. Phys. Chem. 1972, 76(13), 1853-1857.
20. Penner, R. M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106(13), 3339-3353.
21. Enustun, B. V.; Turkevich, J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1963, 85(21), 3317-3328.
22. Lee, P. C.; Meisel, D. J. J. Phys. Chem. 1982, 86(17), 3391-3395.
23. Henglein, A.; Giersig, M. J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103(44), 9533-9539.
24. Zhang, H.; Jin, R.; Mirkin, C. A. Nano Lett 2004, 4(8), 1493-1495.
25. Murakoshi, K.; Tanaka, H.; Sawai, Y.; Nakato, Y. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106(12), 3041-3045.
26. Murakoshi, K.; Tanaka, H.; Sawai, Y.; Nakato, Y. Surf. Sci. 2003, 532-535, 1109-1115.
27. Liu, H.; Penner, R. M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104(39), 9131-9139.
28. Gunnarsson, L.; Bjerneld, E. J.; Xu, H.; Petronis, S.; Kasemo, B.; Kali, M. App. Phys. Lett. 2001, 78(6), 802-804.
29. Schilder, G.; Krenn, J. R.; Hohenau, A.; Ditlbacher, H.; Leitner, A.; Aussenegg, F. R.; Schaich, W. L.; Puscasu, W. L.; Monacelli, B.; Boreman, B. Phys. Rev. B 2003, 68, 155427.
30. Fromm, D. P.; Sundaramurthy, A.; Schlick, P. J.; Kino, G.; Moerner, W. E. Nano Lett. 2004, 4(5), 957-961.
31. Zhang, H.; Mirkin, C. A. Chem. Mater. 2004, 16(8), 1480-1484.
32. Note here the discussion in ref 3.