Recovery of surfaces from impurity poisoning during crystal growth

Land, T. A.; Martin, Tracie; Potapenko, Sergey Yu; Palmore, G. Tayhas R.; Yoreo, James J. De

doi:10.1038/20886

Cited by 241 publications

(296 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

281

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although step-pinning and isomorphic impurity incor poration models represent a valuable description of crystal growth inhibition, recent AFM observations of crystal sur faces growing in the presence of impurities have sho\Vll that the nano-scale mechanisms of growth inhibition seem to be more complex than expected [4,[15][16][17][18][19][20]. In particular, growth of the first monolayers from an "impure" aqueous solution on a pre-existing crystal face frequently shows an anomalous kinetics, which is difficult to explain only on the basis of the classic models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of CO32- on the growth of barite {0 0 1} and {2 1 0} surfaces: An AFM study

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of barite {O 0 I } and {2 I O} faces from aqueous solutions moderately supersaturated with respect to barite ({Jbarite ;::: :; 12 for experiments on {O 01} surfaces and {Jbarile ;::: :; 7 for experiments on {21 O} surfaces) and bearing different concentrations of carbonate has been studied in situ using an atomic force microscope (AFM). Nanoscopic observations show that, above a certain carbonate concen tration threshold in the aqueous solution, the advancement of mono layers (�3.5A in height) on barite {0 01} and (210} surfaces is strongly inhibited. However, inhibition never affects the growth of the first monolayer, whose growth rate increases in the presence of carbonate. In contrast, the second monolayer growth rate decreases as the concentration of carbonate in the solution increases. For high carbonate concentrations in the solution, growth stops after the formation of the first monolayer. While on barite {O 0 I } faces, the for mation of a second monolayer does not occur for carbonate concentrations higher than 0. 2 mM, on barite (21 O} faces the complete inhibition of the second monolayer is observed for carbonate concentrations higher than 0.05 mM. Once growth on {O 0 I} or {21 O} faces is completely inhibited, i. e. such surfaces are in the "dead zone", growth can be recovered by increasing supersaturation. In order to study the recovery behaviour of barite {O 0 I } and (2 I O} faces from the "dead zone", an additional series of AFM experiments have been conducted. In these experiments, carbonate-free aqueous solutions with increasing supersaturations with respect to barite were passed over (00 I} and (21 O} surfaces previously "poisoned" with carbonate. Our experimental results show that the recovery of growth on barite {O O I} faces requires an important increase of the solution supersaturation. In contrast, the recovery of barite {21 O} surface growth does not require any supersaturation increase, but spontaneously occurs in a few minutes. Our observations of inhibition and growth recovery on barite surfaces at a nano-scale are discussed and compared with the descriptions given by the classical crystal growth inhibition models.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The supersaturation conditions and impurity concentrations for which no growth is observed define the so-called "dead zone" [1][2][3][4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of CO32- on the growth of barite {0 0 1} and {2 1 0} surfaces: An AFM study

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2] Indeed, the growth of prismatic faces is almost completely suppressed under conditions of low supersaturation in the presence of these ions. [4,5] Moreover, the concentration of these impurities is found to be one to two orders of magnitude higher in the prismatic versus the pyramidal sectors. [5,6] This selectivity has been attributed to the fact that the {101} surface layer is K + -terminated, as shown by grazing incidence X-ray diffraction, and thus a large barrier should exist for adsorption of a multivalent cation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[4,5] Moreover, the concentration of these impurities is found to be one to two orders of magnitude higher in the prismatic versus the pyramidal sectors. [5,6] This selectivity has been attributed to the fact that the {101} surface layer is K + -terminated, as shown by grazing incidence X-ray diffraction, and thus a large barrier should exist for adsorption of a multivalent cation. [7] In contrast, the {100} face has both K + and H 2 PO 4 -ions at the solution interface and would presumably incorporate a multivalent metal impurity more readily.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ab initio Study of Al(III) Adsorption on Stepped 100 Surfaces of KDP Crystals

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crystals of potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH 2 PO 4 , KDP) are grown in large scale for use as nonlinear material in laser components. Traces of trivalent metal impurities are often added to the supernatant to achieve habit control during crystal growth, selectively inhibiting the growth of the {100} face. Model systems representing AlPO 4 -doped KDP {100} stepped surfaces are prepared and studied using ab initio quantum methods. Results of Hartree-Fock partial optimizations are presented, including estimated energies of ion pair binding to the steps. We find that the PO 4 3-ion takes a position not unlike that of a standard phosphate in the crystal lattice, while the aluminum atom is displaced far from a K + ion position to establish coordinations with the PO 4 3-ion and to bind with another lattice-bound phosphate. Our optimized structures suggest that it is the formation of a fourth coordination of Al(III) to a third phosphate ion from solution, or perhaps from a nearby position in the lattice, that disrupts further deposition, pinning the steps.-4- Background

show abstract

“…This has been highly relevant for a better understanding of crystal growth. 26,27 For the determination of the atomicscale structure, however, X-ray diffraction (XRD) is the most suitable technique. 28 XRD is widely used for the structure determination of crystal surfaces.…”

Section: Atomic-scale Structure At the Solid-liquid Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%