Transition from nucleation to ripening in the classical nucleation model

Journal of Crystal Growth

Volumn 312, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1046-1054

  Uwaha, Makio ^a   Koyama, Katsunobu ^a  

^a NAGOYA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

A1. Computer simulation; A1. Nucleation; A2. Growth from solutions

Indexed keywords

A1. COMPUTER SIMULATION; A2. GROWTH FROM SOLUTIONS; CLASSICAL NUCLEATION; CLUSTER SIZES; CLUSTER-SIZE DISTRIBUTION; GROWTH FROM SOLUTION; INITIAL STAGES; NUCLEATION STAGES; NUMERICAL INTEGRATIONS; SINGLE VARIABLE; SURFACE FREE ENERGY; TIME EVOLUTIONS; TRANSITION POINT;

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS; OSTWALD RIPENING; SUPERSATURATION;

NUCLEATION;

EID: 77249145304     PISSN: 00220248     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2010.01.017     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. The classical nucleation model was first formulated by L. Farkas [Z. Phys. Chem. 125 (1927) 236] based on the idea of L. Szilard. The exact steady-state solution of the model was provided by Becker and Döring, and the model is sometimes called Becker-Döring model. Analysis for the case of time-dependent monomer number was first given by D. Kashchiev [Surf. Sci. 18 (1969) 293]. See Ref. [12] for a brief history of the classical nucleation model.
2. Becker R., and Döring W. Ann. Phys. 24 (1935) 719
3. Binder K., and Stauffer D. Adv. Phys. 25 (1976) 342
4. Marder M. Phys. Rev. A 36 (1987) 858
5. Sagui C., and Grant M. Phys. Rev. E 59 (1999) 4175
6. Lifshitz I.M., and Slyozov V.V. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 19 (1961) 35
7. Wagner C. Z. Elektrochem. 65 (1961) 581
8. Penrose O. J. Statist. Phys. 89 (1997) 305
9. von Weimarn P.P. Chem. Rev. 2 (1925) 217
10. Barlow D.A., Baird J.K., and Su C.-H. J. Cryst. Growth 264 (2004) 417
11. Here we have simple condensation and evaporation (or deposition and dissolution) in mind, It is straightforward to extend this treatment to other systems by changing the exponent to frac(1, 2) (for two dimensions), to frac(1, 3) (for a diffusion-limited system) or to 0 (for a diffusion-limited system in two dimensions).
12. K.F. Kelton, in: H. Ehrenreich, D. Turnbull (Eds.), Solid State Physics, vol. 45, Academic, New York, 1991, pp. 75-177.
13. D.T. Wu, in: H. Ehrenreich, F. Spaepen (Eds.), Solid State Physics, vol. 50, Academic, New York, 1996, pp. 37-187.
14. Kashchiev D. Nucleation: Basic Theory with Applications (2000), Butterworth-Heinemann
15. Neu J.C., Bonilla L.L., and Carpio A. Phys. Rev. E 71 (2005) 021601
16. Meerson B., Sander L.M., and Smereka P. Europhys. Lett. 72 (2005) 604
17. These values are taken from the direct numerical result, though they can be predicted from the standard nucleation theory with good accuracy.
18. Langer J.S., and Schwartz A.J. Phys. Rev. A 21 (1980) 948
19. Garside J., Gaska C., and Mullin J.W. J. Cryst. Growth 13/14 (1972) 510
20. 1 enters explicitly so that the problem becomes analytically intractable. If the supersaturation is not too high, the critical sizes in both models are the same, and we may neglect this complication.
21. After submission of the paper, we learned that a similar numerical integration of the CN model has been published: Z. Kožíšek and P. Demo, Aerosol Sci. 40 (2009) 44. The authors found the qualitative features of the intermediate stage reported in the present paper, although the connection to the final stage are not clearly explained in their paper. Our simulation results were first reported in the 15th International Conference on Crystal Growth (2007) (Abstract No. 345) prior to the publication of the above paper.
22. Buyevich Yu.A., and Mansurov V.V. J. Cryst. Growth 104 (1990) 861