2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.148972
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metastable Ce-terminated (1 1 1) surface of ceria

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The height of a single O−Ce−O layer is about 0.31 nm. The Ce‐terminated CeO 2 (111) surface is metastable, successfully constructed in nanoparticles, and recently resolved by aberration‐corrected transmission electron microscopy (ACTEM) [22] …”
Section: Ceo2 Model Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The height of a single O−Ce−O layer is about 0.31 nm. The Ce‐terminated CeO 2 (111) surface is metastable, successfully constructed in nanoparticles, and recently resolved by aberration‐corrected transmission electron microscopy (ACTEM) [22] …”
Section: Ceo2 Model Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Ce-terminated CeO 2 (111) surface is metastable, successfully constructed in nanoparticles, and recently resolved by aberration-corrected transmission electron microscopy (ACTEM). [22] The ultrathin CeO 2 (111) islands growing on metal surfaces exhibit more appearances because of the interplay with the substrate, which may undergo surface rearrangement due to the strain effect, size effect, or lattice mismatch to the substrate. The Wu group [23] discovered a 3 : 4 coincidence cell of monolayer CeO 2 (Figure 2a), which is a reconstruction induced by the solid electronic interaction with the Pt (111) substrate.…”
Section: Stoichiometric Ceomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the crystallographic coherence domain becomes smaller, all the parameters relax to higher values: the cell constant grows by about 0.2% for specimen Ce200, characterized by very small NPs (~3 nm). This is a well-known nano-structuring effect on oxides in general [39] and nano-CeO 2 in particular [40], which, in the latter case, is attributed either to a significant concentration of Ce 3+ species or to surface structure relaxation [70]. The concomitant increase of the displacement parameters suggests structural disordering in small NPs; with the patterns collected at the same temperature, the increase of U(Ce) and U(O) is attributed to a static contribution to the atomic mean square displacement parameters [71,72], possibly due to surface phenomena.…”
Section: X-ray Powder Diffraction: Bragg-scattering Analysis By Rietv...mentioning
confidence: 95%